Former Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher has died at 87 following a stroke, her spokesman has said.
Lord Bell said: "It is with great sadness that Mark and Carol Thatcher announced that their mother Baroness Thatcher died peacefully following a stroke this morning."
Baroness Thatcher was Conservative prime minister from 1979 to 1990.
She was the first woman to hold the post. Her family is expected to make a further statement later.
87 isn't a bad innings I guess eh ?
... I appreciate she was something of a polarising figure, but lets show a touch of decorum when posting. If you're just going to flame her/other users then it'd be best if she expressed such opinions elsewhere. Thank you.
I think this wasn't long in coming - she has been ill for some time. Like any PM you care to mention, she did some good, she did some bad but whichever way you look at it, I think it is fair to say she changed the face of both UK politics and affected our own outlook as a nation.
Frazzled wrote: 87 is a good run. With her debate skills I am sure the Iron Lady had St. Pete all tied in knots in minutes.
I don't think she's heading upstairs... That elevator is bound for the basement...
I would respectfully beg to disagree.
I'm also not sure that saying she's going to hell is necessarily the kind of respect due an old lady who has just passed away.
...Hilter was an old man. 0.o
Silly me, forgetting all those innocents butchered and gassed to death by Thatcher. And the World War she started.
Like her or hate her, Margaret Thatcher was a woman who stood by her beliefs, and tried to do her best for her nation. Could we have a little less stupidity and not invoke Godwin's Law in a thread about an old lady passing away?
The national opinion here compares her to him on the level that she screwed over the people here is all. Just because someone's old doesn't just reconcile the things that they did earlier in their lives. =/
Frazzled wrote: 87 is a good run. With her debate skills I am sure the Iron Lady had St. Pete all tied in knots in minutes.
I don't think she's heading upstairs... That elevator is bound for the basement...
I would respectfully beg to disagree.
I'm also not sure that saying she's going to hell is necessarily the kind of respect due an old lady who has just passed away.
Indeed. My grandmother is an old lady with dementia. She also happens to be an ex-Labour politician. Presumably this means she's going to heaven when she dies, because socialists get to decide who goes and who doesn't?
It's strange that such a polarising figure be given the honours of those generally loved by the state. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of people who don't like the royal family but I don't think it's in the same percentage as those who felt less favourable about Mrs. Thatcher.
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
Wyrmalla wrote: The national opinion here compares her to him on the level that she screwed over the people here is all. Just because someone's old doesn't just reconcile the things that they did earlier in their lives. =/
I disagree that you sir, are in any position to proudly declare what the 'national opinion' is.
If you personally equate economic policies in the 80's with the Holocaust, then I would respectfully recommend that you cease posting to that effect. There are plenty of other places on the internet where you can gloat about the death of an old lady. Here, it just comes across as crass and tasteless.
She's certainly not Hitler, that's hardly a fair comparison. I also fully back her strong aggressive stance on the Falklands. She was formidable and I can respect that, she was strong and I respect that.
But the damage she did to the British infrastructure, the families she destroyed in Wales and the North, well, I'm not sure they will be shedding tears in many places beyond the garden counties of the South East. She sold our legacy down the river. As a left winger, I'll say that the union stranglehold on the nation prior to her taking office was damaging, but she swung the pendulum so far in the opposite direction that great damage was done to communities across the Isles and many places are still reeling from it.
And she openly and honestly didn't give a shiz. She clearly stated that she needed to keep 1/3rd of the population happy to remain in power and did that, to the detriment of the other 2/3rds of the nation.
Medium of Death wrote: It's strange that such a polarising figure be given the honours of those generally loved by the state. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of people who don't like the royal family but I don't think it's in the same percentage as those who felt less favourable about Mrs. Thatcher.
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
Churchill had many bad things to say, from
This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century"
to
I do not admit... that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia... by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race... has come in and taken its place.
Yet Churchill is remembered well. How curious.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: She's certainly not Hitler, that's hardly a fair comparison. I also fully back her strong aggressive stance on the Falklands. She was formidable and I can respect that, she was strong and I respect that.
But the damage she did to the British infrastructure, the families she destroyed in Wales and the North, well, I'm not sure they will be shedding tears in many places beyond the garden counties of the South East. She sold our legacy down the river. As a left winger, I'll say that the union stranglehold on the nation prior to her taking office was damaging, but she swung the pendulum so far in the opposite direction that great damage was done to communities across the Isles and many places are still reeling from it.
And she openly and honestly didn't give a shiz. She clearly stated that she needed to keep 1/3rd of the population happy to remain in power and did that, to the detriment of the other 2/3rds of the nation.
I would agree and disagree with various parts of that.
But that can and should be saved for another thread. People saying tasteless things about the death of an old lady in just about any context just plain strikes me as disrespectful.
Wyrmalla wrote: The national opinion here compares her to him on the level that she screwed over the people here is all. Just because someone's old doesn't just reconcile the things that they did earlier in their lives. =/
That's as hyperbolic and nonsensical as the window lickers over here comparing Obama to Hitler, when either Thatcher or Obama are shown to have systematically and industrially exterminated 8 million people and lead the world into a conflict costing 40 million lives, let me know.
Arguably that's due to the Second World War overshadowing much of that kind of thing in popular media. You can contrast or gloss over those appalling statements with the other things he's done. For a lot of people, in regards to Mrs Thatcher, there isn't very much of anything to use as gloss. Falklands and... ?
^^ Heh, I just picked a figure of the top of my head, sorry if it was specific. What I'm inferring is that whilst the South of England and the Conservatives may see her as a woman who's heavy handedness was what was required for the good of the country, the other countries in the union kind of think differently. The BBC's currently lauding her role during the economic crisis of the time and the putting her other policies into a positive light, whereas glazing over things like the Hunger Strikes, Poll Tax, her ignorance of the poor, etc. In retrospect those that weren't effected by her negative points see her in a good light, whereas the ones on the other end of the scale demonize her.
I didn't live through any of her tenure, but the opinion people have about her here is hardly split. =/
Medium of Death wrote: Arguably that's due to the Second World War overshadowing much of that kind of thing in popular media. You can contrast or gloss over those appalling statements with the other things he's done. For a lot of people, in regards to Mrs Thatcher, there isn't very much of anything to use as gloss. Falklands and... ?
She broke the Unions, something that desperately needed to be done. She was the first female Prime Minister. She stood up for Britain remarkably well on the international stage. She was honest, and you got exactly what it said on the package when you voted for her (something lacking in politics today).
Her domestic policies were often unsavoury, and I disagree with many of her privatisations. Others I think were horribly damaging in the short term, but beneficial in the long term.
History as a general rule of thumb looks rather well on old Maggie. She's gone down as one of the greats next to Disraeli, Churchill, or Gladstone.
Wyrmalla wrote: ...glazing over things like the Hunger Strikes...
Right. Stop. Stop now.
Your lack of knowledge on this subject has long since ceased to be cute.
She let ten men die and set back peace between Ireland and Britain back by years by radicalizing and already outspoken nationalist movement. It was her heavy handedness that's caused such low opinions from those that actually had to deal with the results.
Wyrmalla wrote: whereas glazing over things like the Hunger Strikes
You mean hunger strikes from a terrorist organisation that tried to assassinate her, and had carried out bombings and murders across the country and in Northern Ireland?
Frazzled wrote: 87 is a good run. With her debate skills I am sure the Iron Lady had St. Pete all tied in knots in minutes.
I don't think she's heading upstairs... That elevator is bound for the basement...
I would respectfully beg to disagree.
I'm also not sure that saying she's going to hell is necessarily the kind of respect due an old lady who has just passed away.
I don't want to stir this pot, but I'm pretty sure she'd have Hell ship shape Bristol fashion in 6 months.
For once i agree with you, as a Scot i find it remarkably difficult to mourn her, as a matter of fact i dont.
Hells to nice a place for Thatcher, i'm sorry MOD's but try and see it from a Scot's view, she ruined my country and her industries. Thank whoever's in charge that she's gone.
Wyrmalla wrote: She let ten men die and set back peace between Ireland and Britain back by years by radicalizing and already outspoken nationalist movement. It was her heavy handedness that's caused such low opinions from those that actually had to deal with the results.
You make it sound like there hadn't been violence before she took office, as if events like Bloody Sunday hadn't already fanned the flames, and that the Republican movement in Northern Ireland was not already firmly committed to using violence to achieve their objectives before she took office.
(for the record I was born and bred in Northern Ireland, during the Troubles)
Wyrmalla wrote: whereas glazing over things like the Hunger Strikes
You mean hunger strikes from a terrorist organisation that tried to assassinate her, and had carried out bombings and murders across the country and in Northern Ireland?
I'll make the point that I'm not disagreeing that the men involved should have been punished. What I'm saying is that there was no need for them to be made exampled of. When it came to handling the opposition she would turn it up to eleven with her response. They may have been terrorists, but I hardly think that their treatment during their imprisonment was humane. You don't get rid of terrorism by martyring its members. =/
Wyrmalla wrote: I'll make the point that I'm not disagreeing that the men involved should have been punished. What I'm saying is that there was no need for them to be made exampled of. When it came to handling the opposition she would turn it up to eleven with her response. They may have been terrorists, but I hardly think that their treatment during their imprisonment was humane. You don't get rid of terrorism by martyring its members. =/
Are you laboring under the assumption that it was an involuntary hunger strike or something?
She broke the Unions, something that desperately needed to be done. She was the first female Prime Minister. She stood up for Britain remarkably well on the international stage. She was honest, and you got exactly what it said on the package when you voted for her (something lacking in politics today).
Her domestic policies were often unsavoury, and I disagree with many of her privatisations. Others I think were horribly damaging in the short term, but beneficial in the long term.
History as a general rule of thumb looks rather well on old Maggie. She's gone down as one of the greats next to Disraeli, Churchill, or Gladstone.
I disagree, the Unions needed their necks wound back in, not the utter exterminations she unleashed. Once she had rid of them, what did she do? Close the mines, close the factories and outsource.
I remember well, her tour of a car factory, it was previously a British manufacturer and was now a Japanese car firm. She touted loudly that all the jobs had been saved, but entirely glossed over where the profit would now be going, out of the country.
Medium of Death wrote: Arguably that's due to the Second World War overshadowing much of that kind of thing in popular media. You can contrast or gloss over those appalling statements with the other things he's done. For a lot of people, in regards to Mrs Thatcher, there isn't very much of anything to use as gloss. Falklands and... ?
She broke the Unions, something that desperately needed to be done. She was the first female Prime Minister. She stood up for Britain remarkably well on the international stage. She was honest, and you got exactly what it said on the package when you voted for her (something lacking in politics today).
Her domestic policies were often unsavoury, and I disagree with many of her privatisations. Others I think were horribly damaging in the short term, but beneficial in the long term.
History as a general rule of thumb looks rather well on old Maggie. She's gone down as one of the greats next to Disraeli, Churchill, or Gladstone.
Oh i'm sorry suffering from selective memory are we. Disraeli(7/10), Gladstone(7/10), Churchill (0/10) he was only a good war leader, he was not a good prim minister he was also a massive opportunist, he changed from the Cons to the Liberals during the reforms to gain him votes then went back to the Cons when it suited him.
Wyrmalla wrote: I'll make the point that I'm not disagreeing that the men involved should have been punished. What I'm saying is that there was no need for them to be made exampled of. When it came to handling the opposition she would turn it up to eleven with her response. They may have been terrorists, but I hardly think that their treatment during their imprisonment was humane. You don't get rid of terrorism by martyring its members. =/
Are you laboring under the assumption that it was an involuntary hunger strike or something?
I'm making the point that the situation shouldn't have gotten that far. Allowing people that are calling you and your government oppressive to starve to death in one of your prisons doesn't go ways to dispelling that idea...
Wyrmalla wrote: I'm making the point that the situation shouldn't have gotten that far. Allowing people that are calling you and your government oppressive to starve to death in one of your prisons doesn't go ways to dispelling that idea...
So if I decide to starve myself while shouting about how my current government is oppressive, your view is that they should cave to my demands simply because I've chosen to kill myself?
Wyrmalla wrote: ...glazing over things like the Hunger Strikes...
Right. Stop. Stop now.
Your lack of knowledge on this subject has long since ceased to be cute.
She let ten men die and set back peace between Ireland and Britain back by years by radicalizing and already outspoken nationalist movement.
She let ten terrorists kill themselves, because they didn't enjoy being treated as the common criminals that they were instead of 'political prisoners'. They weren't imprisoned for their radical views. Bobby Sands was holding weapons for murderers and may have been one himself. Other hungerstrikers definitely were murderers. I'm not sure many people would shed tears if Al Qaeda terrorists tried to starve themselves to death.
The Provisional IRA were not valiant freedom fighters. They killed innocent members of the public on purpose, not to mention the fact that they tried to kill our PM. Guess who that was.
She broke the Unions, something that desperately needed to be done. She was the first female Prime Minister. She stood up for Britain remarkably well on the international stage. She was honest, and you got exactly what it said on the package when you voted for her (something lacking in politics today).
Her domestic policies were often unsavoury, and I disagree with many of her privatisations. Others I think were horribly damaging in the short term, but beneficial in the long term.
History as a general rule of thumb looks rather well on old Maggie. She's gone down as one of the greats next to Disraeli, Churchill, or Gladstone.
I disagree, the Unions needed their necks wound back in, not the utter exterminations she unleashed. Once she had rid of them, what did she do? Close the mines, close the factories and outsource.
I remember well, her tour of a car factory, it was previously a British manufacturer and was now a Japanese car firm. She touted loudly that all the jobs had been saved, but entirely glossed over where the profit would now be going, out of the country.
What profit!?
British Leyland had been bled dry by union activity. The cars were crap and didn't sell. They fell to bits, almost literally! It was the same story across the board. Many of the state-owned industries you lament only stayed open thanks to massive subsidies. They just weren't profitable. They couldn't compete.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In other news: Seaward and I appear to agree on something. Normal service to be resumed shortly.
In other news: Seaward and I appear to agree on something. Normal service to be resumed shortly.
Then this is really going to blow your mind.
Ayah, I don't get the argument on that. If your organization is blowing things up, you having a hunger strike doesn't strike me as appropriate. That is a method of peaceful resistance. You can't have it both ways. You can either blow stuff up, or pull a Gandhi. If you're part of an organization that blows stuff, you should be shot in the first place no?
If someone's protesting by going on hunger strike its hardly proper to actually allow themselves to starve to death. It just jumps right into their hands. Under her the troubles in Ireland only intensified.
I'm not agreeing with the motives of those who died. I'm saying that given the circumstances it altered public into think these people were freedom fighters. Terrorists like Al Queda are fighting for something that's not a nationalist issue for the British people. The actions of the Hunger Strikers before they died becomes a moot point when the bare points issue that they stood for was Irish nationalism. Their extremism paled when equally extreme actions were taken against them.
Wyrmalla wrote: ...glazing over things like the Hunger Strikes...
Right. Stop. Stop now.
Your lack of knowledge on this subject has long since ceased to be cute.
She let ten men die and set back peace between Ireland and Britain back by years by radicalizing and already outspoken nationalist movement.
She let ten terrorists kill themselves, because they didn't enjoy being treated as the common criminals that they were instead of 'political prisoners'. They weren't imprisoned for their radical views. Bobby Sands was holding weapons for murderers and may have been one himself. Other hungerstrikers definitely were murderers. I'm not sure many people would shed tears if Al Qaeda terrorists tried to starve themselves to death.
The Provisional IRA were not valiant freedom fighters. They killed innocent members of the public on purpose, not to mention the fact that they tried to kill our PM. Guess who that was.
I'm sorry but under what circumstance is it ok to let people starve themselves Ghandi done it and got nothing but our respect, however dislike towards the Brit/Indian government increased because they did not try to stop Ghandi starving himself.
I will not mourne the loss of Thatcher, infact her death seemed to take forever.
finally, the embassy situation with the S.A.S was a complete and utter fiasco.
P.S i like how it is mostly Scot's and the Welsh, traditionally labour who don't seem to mond but N.I's and the English are suddenly upset.
I'm not in favour of Scottish independance but when i look at Thatcher and the torries, i can see why some people find it appealing.
In other news: Seaward and I appear to agree on something. Normal service to be resumed shortly.
Then this is really going to blow your mind.
Ayah, I don't get the argument on that. If your organization is blowing things up, you having a hunger strike doesn't strike me as appropriate. That is a method of peaceful resistance. You can't have it both ways. You can either blow stuff up, or pull a Gandhi. If you're part of an organization that blows stuff, you should be shot in the first place no?
I must say it is very weird being on your side of the fence for once. You are correct you can't blow stuff up and be peaceful.
I'm sorry but under what circumstance is it ok to let people starve themselves Ghandi done it and got nothing but our respect, however dislike towards the Brit/Indian government increased because they did not try to stop Ghandi starving himself.
What on earth are you babbling about? 'Ghandi done it'?
To be clear: Are you equating the actions of Ghandi a peaceful (if misguided) protestor with the actions of, for example, Francis Hughes, who killed two RUC police officers and a British soldier?
I'm sorry but under what circumstance is it ok to let people starve themselves
Any.
People can kill themselves any time they like, by whatever means they like, as far as I'm concerned, so long as they take no one else with them or cause undue loss of property to another.
I'm sorry but under what circumstance is it ok to let people starve themselves
Any.
People can kill themselves any time they like, by whatever means they like, as far as I'm concerned, so long as they take no one else with them or cause undue loss of property to another.
finally, the embassy situation with the S.A.S was a complete and utter fiasco.
Could you explain why you think this was a fiasco please?
Perhaps her saying that none of the terrorists should make it out alive. The SAS killed terrorists who has disarmed themselves and surrendered on her orders. One SAS operative was about to take a terrorist back into the building after he had been capture and shown on television to kill him. He was stopped however by another operative because it wasn't humane.
I'm sorry but under what circumstance is it ok to let people starve themselves Ghandi done it and got nothing but our respect, however dislike towards the Brit/Indian government increased because they did not try to stop Ghandi starving himself.
What on earth are you babbling about? 'Ghandi done it'?
To be clear: Are you equating the actions of Ghandi a peaceful (if misguided) protestor with the actions of, for example, Francis Hughes, who killed two RUC police officers and a British soldier?
Because that's mad, even for Dakka.
You're right i probebly should have said Ghandi went on hunger strick rather than "Ghandi done it"
And it's funny how selective people can be when trying to back up there point, sure your right Francis Hughes a word that i can not say or the MOD's will eat me, however it is worth pointing out that we walked into Ireland and shot people, then divided up the country according to our own needs, not our best moment in history.
Lets face it, on this subject we are never going to see eye to eye. You want to mention the IRA and prove your point that way, i'll mention the industries that Thatcher closed down and the millions of people left unemployed under her shameful regime, the IRA are "easy to disagree with" but so is Thatcher.
And it's funny how selective people can be when trying to back up there point, sure your right Francis Hughes a word that i can not say or the MOD's will eat me, however it is worth pointing out that we walked into Ireland and shot people, then divided up the country according to our own needs, not our best moment in history.
And it's funny how selective people can be when trying to back up there point, sure your right Francis Hughes a word that i can not say or the MOD's will eat me, however it is worth pointing out that we walked into Ireland and shot people, then divided up the country according to our own needs, not our best moment in history.
Yeah, I think we're pretty much done here, kidda.
I don't mean Thatcher done it, sorry for the misunderstanding.
Oh i'm sorry suffering from selective memory are we. Disraeli(7/10), Gladstone(7/10), Churchill (0/10) he was only a good war leader, he was not a good prim minister he was also a massive opportunist, he changed from the Cons to the Liberals during the reforms to gain him votes then went back to the Cons when it suited him.
Thatcher (-10/10)
Selective? Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
I personally am not too keen on Churchill myself, but as a historian, I can emphatically state they those three, plus Thatcher, are generally regarded by historians as 'Great' Prime Ministers, whilst the likes of say, Eden or Major, tend to be forgotten. Usually for their force of will, and the impact they had on Britain (good or bad).
As for your views on whether or not he was a good Prime Minister, well. Once you've had the pleasure of digging through the Churchill archive at Churchill College, Cambridge, reading stuff by his own hand, and dealing with the annoying fiddly yellow paper cataloguing system, I might be more inclined to listen to you on this one.
A cursary read of the wikipedia page will give you
After the assault concluded, the police conducted an investigation into the siege and the deaths of the two hostages and five terrorists, including the actions of the SAS. The soldiers' weapons were taken away for examination and, the following day, the soldiers themselves were interviewed at length by the police at the regiment's base in Hereford.[56] There was controversy over the deaths of two terrorists in the telex room, where the male hostages were held. Hostages later said in interviews that they had persuaded their captors to surrender and television footage appeared to show them throwing weapons out of the window and holding a white flag. The two SAS soldiers who killed the men both stated at the inquest into the terrorists' deaths that they believed the men had been reaching for weapons before they were shot. The inquest jury reached the verdict that the soldiers' actions were justifiable homicide (later known as "lawful killing").
This documentary features statements from those involved that outright states that the SAS went out of their way to kill the terrorists. One of the SAS says that Thatcher did her best not to explicitly say "kill them all", but it was heavily implied on numerous occasions.
Oh i'm sorry suffering from selective memory are we. Disraeli(7/10), Gladstone(7/10), Churchill (0/10) he was only a good war leader, he was not a good prim minister he was also a massive opportunist, he changed from the Cons to the Liberals during the reforms to gain him votes then went back to the Cons when it suited him.
Thatcher (-10/10)
Selective? Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
I personally am not too keen on Churchill myself, but as a historian, I can emphatically state they those three, plus Thatcher, are generally regarded by historians as 'Great' Prime Ministers, whilst the likes of say, Eden or Major, tend to be forgotten. Usually for their force of will, and the impact they had on Britain (good or bad).
As for your views onw hether or not he was a good Prime Minister, well. Once you've had the pleasure of digging through the Churchill archive at Churchill College, Cambridge, reading stuff by his own hand, and dealing with the annoying fiddly yellow paper cataloguing system, I might be inclined to listen to you on this one.
May i ask how you measure "greatness" surely it is from the persons point of view, not from the history records point of view.
For example i think that Blair was a "Great" Prim Minister, although he did illegally invade Iraq thus most people don't like him.
However i do not believe that Thatcher was "Great" however some people do it's all point of view with no correct side.
May i ask how you measure "greatness" surely it is from the persons point of view, not from the history records point of view.
Like with morality, you have the personal view of something, and then you have the greater collective cultural view of something. Whilst that collective view is primarily dictated initially by the majority viewpoint of people of the time, you tend to find that the further from an event you get, the more the collective view is influenced by writers of history.
For example i think that Blair was a "Great" Prim Minister, although he did illegally invade Iraq thus most people don't like him.
However i do not believe that Thatcher was "Great" however some people do it's all point of view with no correct side.
I would disagree quite heavily on Blair. As someone who is inclined towards socialism, I think the man did incredible harm to the fabric of our society, and was nothing more than a conman. I could elaborate in the form of a lengthy essay, but I'm not sure if this is the time or place. Interestingly though, with the reformations Thatcher initiated, one could argue she was responsible for the evolution of Labour, and thus, the formation of glitzy substanceless 'New Labour'.
This thread was never going to go well, such divided views on the woman's political actions have sparked various debates all over the internet.
It's not right to celebrate a persons passing, which many are doing, within moments of me hearing the news I received a Facebook invite to a party celebrating her passing. Such things are wrong. But being from the North East (parents from Newcastle, me from York, my wife from Middlesbrough) The strong views against her are hard to ignore.
Albatross wrote: Wait, the SAS went out of their way to kill terrorists?! Say it ain't so...
Yeah... confused on that on too...
o.O
They went out of their way to kill terrorists that had surrendered. That's my point. You don't shoot people that are clearly not a threat. That's why one of the terrorists is imprisoned now instead of dead, because one of the SAS had the sense to counterman her edict and save some face. Don't argue that shooting people that have surrendered and have been shown on national television is in any way a good idea. =P
Anyhow. Her death's going to be stirring up a lot of old sentiments with the Scots I suspect. With the independence issue right now its only going to be fueling nationalism. If its the case where people outside of the country are saying how great she was, but the Scots are reflecting on her differently its only going to fuel the independence movement more.
I'll try and be as fair as possible when it comes to this subject, as earlier posters are right to say that we shouldn't be gloating over an old woman's death, but, and it's a big BUTT...
As somebody who grew up when she was PM, I can remember vividly the: harsh treatment of miners during the strikes (including deployment of the security services to spy on them) the police brutality and racism in the inner cities, the fire sale of Britain's utilities, the notorious poll tax, the myth she stood up for Britain's interests in Europe, and of course a legacy of TINA (there is no alternative but the free market) that continues to pervade British politics to this day.
Sure, she stood up for the Falklands, but that's the least you would expect from a British PM. Still, on the positive side, she did handbag Reagan over the Grenada invasion!
May i ask how you measure "greatness" surely it is from the persons point of view, not from the history records point of view.
Like with morality, you have the personal view of something, and then you have the greater collective cultural view of something. Whilst that collective view is primarily dictated initially by the majority viewpoint of people of the time, you tend to find that the further from an event you get, the more the collective view is influenced by writers of history.
For example i think that Blair was a "Great" Prim Minister, although he did illegally invade Iraq thus most people don't like him.
However i do not believe that Thatcher was "Great" however some people do it's all point of view with no correct side.
I would disagree quite heavily on Blair. As someone who is inclined towards socialism, I think the man did incredible harm to the fabric of our society, and was nothing more than a conman. I could elaborate in the form of a lengthy essay, but I'm not sure if this is the time or place. Interestingly though, with the reformations Thatcher initiated, one could argue she was responsible for the evolution of Labour, and thus, the formation of glitzy substanceless 'New Labour'.
If you want to know were i stand on the political spectrum then just go to the "communism" thread on off-topic and have a look, as for Blair he overseen one of the biggest increases in our economy, luck or skill i don't know. As for "new labour" historically when labour has gone left (in recent times) it has lost votes so they needed to become more central in order to win elections. Although i do dislike "new-labour", i liked "labour"
Personaly I think she will be seen in a better light as time goes on. I can understand why some people hate her. I come from "Up north" and my father in law was a miner. Her name cannot be spoken in his house.
However much of the hate is down to the way she treated unions and industry. It has to be rememberd that unions tried to hold the country to ransom, as they had done in 1972 & 74, leaving the country with 3 day weeks and power cuts. There was a real fear that there would be a genral strike. The unions had gained far too much power and become very militant. British production had sufferd due to this. Look at British Layland & British Rail. We made crap and were able to keep doing so because the govenment propped up loss makeing industry that was stuck in the past. Something had to be done and was. She may have been harsh, but IMO it was needed because it had been aloud to spread for too long.
As people like my father in law die and the anger subsides I think we will see her as a reformer. I also don't buy that much of the anger is anything but a vocal minoraty. Dispite being a politicly motivated and active group the unions didn't manage to shift her from office. What did it for the conservatives was the complete lack of charisma of John Major and the scandel and muck that they had got mired in. In the face of New Labour with all the charisma, charm and promise of change they didn't stand a chance.
If you want to know were i stand on the political spectrum then just go to the "communism" thread on off-topic and have a look, as for Blair he overseen one of the biggest increases in our economy, luck or skill i don't know. As for "new labour" historically when labour has gone left (in recent times) it has lost votes so they needed to become more central in order to win elections. Although i do dislike "new-labour", i liked "labour"
Unfortunately, Blair was not responsible for the economic upturn. Under Thatcher and Major prior to Blair, the books had been squared. Whilst the country had been forced into tremendous economic depression, the withdrawal of state funding from unsustainable industries, privatisations, and suchlike, meant that the Government was finally bringing in more money then it was spending, and as a result, did not have to borrow large sums of money every year.
Under Brown and Blair, this was completely reversed. They inherited a balanced bank account, with an economy that was just beginning on the 'boom' of the boom/bust cycle, and squandered it away. They borrowed vast sums of money, and wasted it. Brown even sold off the gold reserves, claiming he had eliminated boom and bust. Eventually they were raiding the pensions, and taking out loans with extortionate interest rates, to begin to be repaid in several years time, just to maintain the status quo.
Our deficit is currently so high thanks to the economic carelessness of New Labour. A party that divulged itself of its socialist roots to become an even more corrupt clone of the Conservative party. That shut down the grammar schools, continued with privatisation, and has done more to widen the gap between the rich and the poor in this country than any other in living memory.
New Labour are a joke. They're just smoke and mirrors, there's absolutely no substance to them. They were all about spin doctors, and maintaining themselves in power for power's sake.
I genuinely wish it was different, as someone with a socialist leaning. I wish there was someone in the Labour party who still had ideas, who still had integrity. Instead, the Labour Party has evolved into a internally stalinistic crowd of 'professional' politicians all out for a quick buck, and no serious proposals on anything. Their entire manifesto is just basically taking the Tory one and writing, 'Nuh-uh!' next to each of the points.
The Tories are barely any better, but I can count one or two heads in there at least who actually seem to have some ideas and personality. New Labour is down to Ed Milliband and Ed Balls, and that's such a sorry lineup that it just makes me feel sad that the Labour party has fallen to such lows.
I’m not really sure why some people seem so nostalgic over the mines. Can anyone here seriously say they would want to work in a mine, or have a loved one work in mine? Its backbreaking and will destroy your lungs far more efficiently than an 80 a day habit. Not to mention that coal pumps huge amounts of crap into the air.
Obviously losing your livelihood is traumatic, but really we be saying good riddance to this polluting industry that killed its employees in record numbers.
Not having a plan regarding what to do with all the ex-miners was a genuine error on Thatcher’s part, but the actual closing of mines wasn’t.
Steve steveson wrote: What did it for the conservatives was the complete lack of charisma of John Major and the scandel and muck that they had got mired in. In the face of New Labour with all the charisma, charm and promise of change they didn't stand a chance.
The more time passes the more I think Major was a far better PM than people gave him credit for. He wasn’t a full on Thatcherite so was never embraced by that wing of the party, but on the whole his economic policies where sound and in 1997 the British economy was in quite a healthy state. Failing to intervene after Black Wednesday probably finished Major off.
Oh I don't disagree with you on his ability a as a PM. His lack of charisma, however, was a problem in that he was an easy target for jokes and lacked the ability to recover from problems like black Wednesday and sleaze due to it. Unfortunately in politics gloss and show win over actual ability time and again.
finally, the embassy situation with the S.A.S was a complete and utter fiasco.
Could you explain why you think this was a fiasco please?
Perhaps her saying that none of the terrorists should make it out alive. The SAS killed terrorists who has disarmed themselves and surrendered on her orders. One SAS operative was about to take a terrorist back into the building after he had been capture and shown on television to kill him. He was stopped however by another operative because it wasn't humane.
I'm not seeing the problem here. Admittedly taking them out inquisition style would be preferred, but you can't have everything.
Doesn't matter if you agree with her policies or not, immediately after announcement of her death is a poor time to gloat and shows more of your own character than it does of hers. Time and a place for everything.
Saying that, did you know that prior to becoming prime minister, she was a food scientist. And its thanks to her that we have mr whippy/soft scoop ice cream.
That's right maggie invented the 99 cone as we know it.
They went out of their way to kill terrorists that had surrendered. That's my point. You don't shoot people that are clearly not a threat.
Why?
Uh, excuse me? I may not be understanding your point here, but are you honestly advocating the killing of people that have surrendered? That kind of thing's way outside the decorum that a soldier should follow and would get them and the people that told them to do it into serious trouble. In this case it didn't oddly because it was showing that Britain was still powerful and all that.
It hasn't been proven conclusively that such events happened because Maggie went out of her way to not point blank say that she wanted them all killed. The SAS involved clearly knew that's what she meant when she said that none of them should leave the building... I'll Godwin's law it again by noting that the upper echelon of the Nazi party did their best to never get their names written down on anything surrounding the holocaust for the most part. =P
finally, the embassy situation with the S.A.S was a complete and utter fiasco.
Could you explain why you think this was a fiasco please?
Perhaps her saying that none of the terrorists should make it out alive. The SAS killed terrorists who has disarmed themselves and surrendered on her orders. One SAS operative was about to take a terrorist back into the building after he had been capture and shown on television to kill him. He was stopped however by another operative because it wasn't humane.
I'm not seeing the problem here. Admittedly taking them out inquisition style would be preferred, but you can't have everything.
They went out of their way to kill terrorists that had surrendered. That's my point. You don't shoot people that are clearly not a threat.
Why?
I was around at the time of the siege and watched the denouement on TV. There was a widespread feeling that the SAS had given the terrorists what they deserved.
Indeed I have sitting on my table the Airfis 1/32 scale SAS soldiers they released after this affair.
Automatically Appended Next Post: While we are considering the actions of the SAS, let's bear in mind that the terrorists had shot three hostages and threatened to shoot another one every half hour.
I don't know much about her politics (something about milk snatching?) but did you guys know she helped to invent soft-serve ice cream? That alone should redeem her.
Albatross wrote: Wait, the SAS went out of their way to kill terrorists?! Say it ain't so...
Yeah... confused on that on too...
o.O
It's the SAS, you don't call a guy who washes cars to fix them, and you don't call the SAS to extend the international hand of good will and friendship. They're some of the best at what they do in the world if not the best, and what they happen to do boils down to breaking things and killing people.
Any way, respects to the Baroness for her long career of service, I'm sure the Argentinians breathed a collective sigh of relief today.
I doubt it, now the Argentinians have to worry about Zombie Thatcher. As oceans don't stop zombies she could crawl ashore any minute. Its best they evacuate Buenos Ares now just to be safe.
I came for the mud slinging, I'm glad you haven't disappointed me dakka!
RIP Maggie T, crushing the Unions and the Argies were both good efforts. The no BS stance on the IRA was just what was needed at the time, the skills learnt then and the Tech developed and deployed then set the scene for the Provos being forced to the table a decade later. Most of all was Ronnie Rayguns and here unflincinjng front against Communism did the same on the world stage.
It was a shame to see her decline over he years and equally those dregs that celebrate such things in their own myopic way.
Blair managed to be a personality on the world stage, Thatcher was the last Great British Leader on it. Right or wrong she would stick to her guns and do what she though was needed.
I remember the Embassy SAS troop being on tv saying that she turned up in the bar at Hereford and drank a can beer with them to toast their successful action. Classy.
notprop wrote: I remember the Embassy SAS troop being on tv saying that she turned up in the bar at Hereford and drank a can beer with them to toast their successful action. Classy.
She also sat in on one of their live fire kill house training sessions.
I'm browsing through some of the online sites of British news publications and I am actually surprised at the level of hateful vitriol. I mean, it makes the whole American "conservative vs. liberal" thing look like:
I have no issue with people disliking, hating policies and decisions enacted by Thatcher.
No issue with them articulating that either, but taking this savage glee in her death is something I do have issue with.
I would agree with this statement by Lord Mandelson
I'm not sure whether I saw her as an inspiration. I certainly saw her as a force to be reckoned with, I mean a political and electoral force that was almost overwhelming.
I think also, on reflection, to be honest, I would say that she introduced, she ushered in, a timely and necessary overhaul of the UK economy in many ways.
The problem I have with that reflection though is that I think in other ways she was too indifferent to the social consequences of the economic changes she was undertaking.
Also, comparing her to Hitler was easily one of the stupidest things I've read on dakka, and boy have I seen some doozies.
I'm not happy she's dead. I'll be happy when the discredited ideology which she inflicted on this world is utterly destroyed. I’ll be happy when I know that we’ve managed to climb out of the hole she’s dug for us. I’ll be happy when the ‘free market’, which she bizarrely revered, stops consuming ordinary people’s social and economic capital. She’s a long way from dead.
The only terrorist to survive the Embassy siege did so because he pretended to be a hostage and was led out with the others but quickly identified outside. They could hardly shoot him on the lawn. The rest of them were killed in the building. It wasn't a case if shooting unarmed men, their surrender couldn't be taken seriously. There have been enough occasions when terrorists 'surrender' as a distraction and are still armed with guns or grenades. Given the snap decisions that needed to be taken and the general confusion of shooting and gas everywhere it was best to shoot them dead and be sure of it. I've absolutely no problem with the conduct of the SAS that day, and anyone who does needs a reality check. It was a dangerous situation with a lot of people at risk, no point in taking unreasonable chances. The terrorists had ample opportunity to end it peacefully.
Also... for those naysayers, did she have a part of the UK's economic turnaround, or not? Kinda eye-popping isn't it?
Her 'economic miracle' relied a great deal on the discovery of North Sea oil in Scottish waters. She also deregulated the financial markets and turned the city of London into a casino. Look how that turned out.
When Margaret Thatcher came to power the United Kingdom was in the last chance saloon. Labor markets were highly unionized; the commanding heights of the economy were dominated by loss-making behemoths; marginal tax rates were eye-wateringly high; and the rich, famous and talented were fleeing overseas. Either the U.K. fixed it then or headed ever deeper into economic and social turmoil.
Some eleven years later she had put the great back into Great Britain.
COLUMN: Thatcher, Reagan defined an era
COLUMN: Thatcher and Reagan were kindred spirits
OPINIONLINE: Iron Lady leaves divisive legacy
She cut marginal tax rates such that the "fame drain" and "brain drain" stopped and went into reverse. Film star, Michael Caine, for example returned from the U.S.; she would invite him to cocktail parties on the 2nd floor of 10 Downing Street, grab his arm, and take him around the room proudly introducing him to all her other guests with the words "This is Michael – he came back!"
She returned scores of state enterprises to the private sector; these lumbering, subsidy guzzling embarrassments were transformed into nimble, profit-making, taxpaying, world-class companies so much so her privatization policy was copied around the world.
Slowly but surely she brought the labor unions back under the rule of law; bullying by extremists stopped; days lost to strikes plummeted; and ordinary members took the leadership away from the communists.
She similarly gave the staff in the newly privatized industries terrific deals on purchasing shares. Many of them did so and ownership of shares by individuals as opposed to say pension funds soared.
She had an enormous impact on the U.K.'s Labour Party. She forced her opponents into realizing they were unelectable as long as they were committed to public ownership of the means of production.
She was robust and principled on the international front. She faced down European Union bureaucrats in Brussels, Iranian Embassy hijackers, Argentinean military dictators and IRA bombers while working closely with the Pope and President Reagan to tear down that wall and defeat the evil empire without a shot being fired.
And she relentlessly taught the nation a great deal of simple economic commonsense, so simple that her detractors called it the economics of a housewife. Whatever. It transformed how the nation viewed the economy and ensured that all future U.K. governments had to be more market friendly.
Her three terms were a major turning point in history not just in the U.K. but worldwide.
So what can we learn from Margaret or Lady T as we call her?
She had a very strong moral compass; she knew the difference between good and evil and she made sure we all knew. She disciplined herself to do what was right and saw that as "the highroad to pride, self-esteem and personal satisfaction".
She cut through the guff and nonsense and used short Anglo-Saxon words to get to the point. No "at this moment in time", but rather "now."
She did lead and expected a great deal from all around her. The inside joke was that Rome would have been built in a day if she'd been the foreman on that job.
The perception was that she was as tough as nails who handbagged opponents (as in hit people over the head with her brick-lined fashion item). In reality she listened to all sides and worried more than most people realize about some of her more radical policies.
She championed policies that went with the grain of human nature such as selling public housing units at deep discounts and giving nationalized industry employees great share deals on privatization.
She used four years of leading her party in opposition (1975-1979) by promoting people on merit rather than lineage, gender, or ethnicity, thus transforming "the stupid party" into really rather a smart one.
A great deal of solid policy work was done in that time led by the Institute of Economic Affairs her favorite think tank. She knew and hugely admired Ronald Reagan with whom she only once fell out – Grenada was British and he failed to alert her to the U.S. invasion.
And she did not try to do it all at once. The unions were brought under control by a series of acts over a decade, not one big bill. Likewise the state owned industries were privatized a few a year so the markets could absorb them.
To sum up the secret of Lady T, in addition to having the right ideas you have to have a strong moral compass; you simplify your message; while leading you always listen; have policies that go with the grain of human nature; think through strategy ahead of time; build good teams; use circumstances; make great allies; prepare before you are in power; and have patience.
While we mourn we must also celebrate a remarkable woman who rose from a very modest background to be one of the greatest leaders the world has ever seen.
I dont have a kind word to say about her, but revelling in some ones death is a bit over the line.
I was born and grew up in a mining village, that her Government destroyed over night by making most of the male population redundant. Once the Mine went most of the local businesses and shops followed. Then came Alcoholism, drug addiction and crime. A once brilliant and close little community utterly smashed and broken.
In my view this is not what a British prime minister does to the people they are meant to serve. To me her legacy will always be one of misery and callousness
Rest in peace Margaret Thatcher. Whose death was marked by solemn tribute across the world and by jubilation by a relative few. No matter how hard they drink and party in Brixton, Glasgow and mining towns, this is eclipsed by the calls to commemorate her role in the defeat of Communism in Europe, her redemption of our economic future on a national scale, which has been emulated globally even quietly by her successors in New Labour, not that they like to admit it.
It was Thatcher who held out the olive branch to Gorbachev, and ensured he was offered so much and no more, forcing the Soviet leader to make moves that ended in the deconstruction of the Soviet bloc.
It was Thatcher who refused the dictator Galtieri, ensuring the freedom of our own people and ending for nearly thirty years the belief that the UK was spinelessly led and could have her assets snatched..
I have no end of respect for her.
Thatchers Social legacy.
For all their crowing Blair and Brown did not a jot to reverse the policies of Thatcher that they claimed to be opposed to. Did they rejuvenate the North, no? New Labour cares no more for the poor than the tories under Thatcvher did, and might in truth care less. Conservatism warns against the excesses and self destructive nature of socialist extremism, Labour encourages it out of self interest. This is understandable because to Socialist leadership the working class is a resource to be exploited not a population base to be supported. This truth also harkens back to the times of the Trade Union leadership who were very well off and used their influence with their members to wield power at the cost of our nations ability to survive economically.
In the 1970's the National Union of Mineworkers made deliberate policy and strategy of bringing down elected Conservative governments by industrial action, with absolutely no regard to the consequences to the nartion as a whole. Either the Trade Unions were to be stopped or our nation had no future. It was Thatcher who stood in the gap between the Union leadership and the economy they were so willing to see destroyed for political ends. It is unfortunate that the working class communities duped into Socialism suffered, but had they not done so our economy and shortly after our way of life would have been destroyed utterly.
With Thatcher a heavy debt was inevitable, but I am pleased we chose a debt of gratitude at the expense of traditional industry rather than the cowards way out and a debt similar to that of Zimbabwe. Lady Thatcher, I salute you.
For all the whining from the mining towns, I was born and raised in an area dominated by mining, My father worked in a factory making mining machinery.
Do you know who destroyed the mining industry?
I'll give you a clue, it wasn't Thatcher, if anyone, it was Scargill.
The unions ground the mining industry into the ground (if you'll excuse the expression)
Endless striking and a complete and utter refusal to modernise to bring a massively loss making industry into profitability killed the mines.
Same with the car industry.
marv335 wrote: For all the whining from the mining towns, I was born and raised in an area dominated by mining, My father worked in a factory making mining machinery.
Do you know who destroyed the mining industry?
I'll give you a clue, it wasn't Thatcher, if anyone, it was Scargill.
The unions ground the mining industry into the ground (if you'll excuse the expression)
Endless striking and a complete and utter refusal to modernise to bring a massively loss making industry into profitability killed the mines.
Same with the car industry.
QFT. Thatcher wanted to close unprofitable mines, Scargill gambled on the livelihoods of all miners (and everyone else) for a chance to destroy a second Conservative government.
RIP Iron Lady...as for executing terrorists that "surrender" I'm all for it.....no quarter given should be SOP when it comes to terrorists. It's just too bad we're trying to fight them in the most PC way possible.
If opposition to Thatcher makes you insane then I come from a crazy country.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Owen Jones in the independent:
In the war led by Margaret Thatcher’s governments – against the left, the trade unions, the post-war consensus – her side was crushingly, devastatingly, humiliatingly victorious.
In the coming days, some on the right will attempt to snuff out criticism of her legacy, arguing that it is somehow disrespectful, spiteful or ghoulish. Absurd, of course: she was a politician – the most divisive in modern British history – and what she represented must of course be debated. They will use the moment of her passing to batter Thatcherism into the national psyche: that she somehow saved Britain from ruin, put the “great” back into “Great Britain”, and so forth. Those who grew up in the Britain that Thatcher built will be patronised: you were still learning how to walk at the height of her power. And that is why it is crucial to separate Thatcherism from the woman who spearheaded it.
Thatcherism was a national catastrophe, and we remain trapped by its consequences. As her former Chancellor Geoffrey Howe put it: “Her real triumph was to have transformed not just one party but two, so that when Labour did eventually return, the great bulk of Thatcherism was accepted as irreversible.”
We are in the midst of the third great economic collapse since the Second World War: all three have taken place since Thatcherism launched its great crusade. This current crisis has roots in the Thatcherite free market experiment, which wiped out much of the country’s industrial base in favour of a deregulated financial sector.
A poisoned “debate” about social security rages in Cameron’s Britain. It focuses on the idea that there are large numbers of people stuck on benefits. It is certainly true that there were more people languishing in long-term unemployment last year than there were in all forms of unemployment 40 years ago. In large part, this is a consequence of Thatcherism’s emptying communities of millions of secure, skilled industrial jobs. Large swathes of Britain – mining villages, steel towns and so on – were devastated, and never really recovered. Even when Britain was supposedly booming, the old industrial heartlands had high levels of what is rather clinically described as “economic inactivity”.
Five million people now languish on social housing waiting lists, while billions of pounds of housing benefit line the pockets of private landlords charging rip-off rents. The scarcity of housing turns communities against each other, as immigrants or anyone deemed less deserving are scapegoated. But the guilt really lies with the Thatcherite policy of right-to-buy and failure to replace the stock that was sold off.
Champions of Thatcherism hail the crippling of the trade unions, which were battered by anti-union laws, mass unemployment, and crushing defeats of strikes, not least after the rout of the iconic miners. This has not only left workers at the mercy of their bosses, but has made them poorer, too. Four years before the crisis began, the income of the bottom half was stagnating, while for the bottom third it actually began to decline – even as corporations were posting record profits. With no unions to stand their corner, workers’ living standards have long been squeezed – driving large numbers to cheap credit.
We could go on. Britain was one of the most equal Western European countries before the Thatcherite project began, and is now one of the most unequal. Thatcherism is not just alive and well: it courses through the veins of British political life. The current government goes where Thatcherism did not dare in its privatisation of the NHS and sledgehammering of the welfare state.
The challenge ahead is the same as it was yesterday: to tear down the whole edifice of Thatcherism, heal Britain of the damage done, and build a country run in the interests of working people. It’s a fight we must all fight. The champagne is on ice until we win it.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I've absolutely no problem with the conduct of the SAS that day, and anyone who does needs a reality check. It was a dangerous situation with a lot of people at risk, no point in taking unreasonable chances. The terrorists had ample opportunity to end it peacefully.
I too am unclear what the problem is, exactly - you take hostages, fine. We negotiate and try to get what we all want. You shoot one of the hostages, and we have to send in the door kickers - at that point, negotiations have ended IMO - the surrender ship has sailed. It's no longer a police action. I'm not endorsing flat out executions, mind you, but I think that once the situation has escalated to that level; the military has considerably more leeway to determine who is hostile and who is not and I don't really have a problem with them erring on the side of caution to save as many innocent lives as possible.
According to some political blogs on Twitter this morning, Thatcher closed 22 pits compared to 93 closed by Harold Wilson.
The worse thing about it all is the political point scoring that inevitably follows and usually espoused by people who aren't old enough to have lived through Thatcher's era; they simply regurgitate the same old tired leftist agenda because it is trendy to bag on Thatcher and who else makes such an easy target.
You have to remember that as opposed to the people who lost jobs, Thatcher's regime also significantly improved the working and family lives of many others. She certainly is not as universally reviled as many would have you believe.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I should clarify that personally, I am ambivalent. I am just about old enough to remember a part of Thatcher's rule but my family is from the South, so generally speaking, we did alright out of it.
If opposition to Thatcher makes you insane then I come from a crazy country.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Owen Jones in the independent:
In the war led by Margaret Thatcher’s governments – against the left, the trade unions, the post-war consensus – her side was crushingly, devastatingly, humiliatingly victorious.
In the coming days, some on the right will attempt to snuff out criticism of her legacy, arguing that it is somehow disrespectful, spiteful or ghoulish. Absurd, of course: she was a politician – the most divisive in modern British history – and what she represented must of course be debated. They will use the moment of her passing to batter Thatcherism into the national psyche: that she somehow saved Britain from ruin, put the “great” back into “Great Britain”, and so forth. Those who grew up in the Britain that Thatcher built will be patronised: you were still learning how to walk at the height of her power. And that is why it is crucial to separate Thatcherism from the woman who spearheaded it.
Thatcherism was a national catastrophe, and we remain trapped by its consequences. As her former Chancellor Geoffrey Howe put it: “Her real triumph was to have transformed not just one party but two, so that when Labour did eventually return, the great bulk of Thatcherism was accepted as irreversible.”
We are in the midst of the third great economic collapse since the Second World War: all three have taken place since Thatcherism launched its great crusade. This current crisis has roots in the Thatcherite free market experiment, which wiped out much of the country’s industrial base in favour of a deregulated financial sector.
A poisoned “debate” about social security rages in Cameron’s Britain. It focuses on the idea that there are large numbers of people stuck on benefits. It is certainly true that there were more people languishing in long-term unemployment last year than there were in all forms of unemployment 40 years ago. In large part, this is a consequence of Thatcherism’s emptying communities of millions of secure, skilled industrial jobs. Large swathes of Britain – mining villages, steel towns and so on – were devastated, and never really recovered. Even when Britain was supposedly booming, the old industrial heartlands had high levels of what is rather clinically described as “economic inactivity”.
Five million people now languish on social housing waiting lists, while billions of pounds of housing benefit line the pockets of private landlords charging rip-off rents. The scarcity of housing turns communities against each other, as immigrants or anyone deemed less deserving are scapegoated. But the guilt really lies with the Thatcherite policy of right-to-buy and failure to replace the stock that was sold off.
Champions of Thatcherism hail the crippling of the trade unions, which were battered by anti-union laws, mass unemployment, and crushing defeats of strikes, not least after the rout of the iconic miners. This has not only left workers at the mercy of their bosses, but has made them poorer, too. Four years before the crisis began, the income of the bottom half was stagnating, while for the bottom third it actually began to decline – even as corporations were posting record profits. With no unions to stand their corner, workers’ living standards have long been squeezed – driving large numbers to cheap credit.
We could go on. Britain was one of the most equal Western European countries before the Thatcherite project began, and is now one of the most unequal. Thatcherism is not just alive and well: it courses through the veins of British political life. The current government goes where Thatcherism did not dare in its privatisation of the NHS and sledgehammering of the welfare state.
The challenge ahead is the same as it was yesterday: to tear down the whole edifice of Thatcherism, heal Britain of the damage done, and build a country run in the interests of working people. It’s a fight we must all fight. The champagne is on ice until we win it.
A some what biased opion there. Don't bleat on about the great industrial manufacturing base, it had already been ravaged and gutted by the unions. Self interest motivating them at the expense of everything else.
Industrial centred economies for the most part are dying out, or are lesser developed
The right to buy social houses gave millions the opportunity to get on the property ladder for the first time. Prior to this a large number of the country lived in rent, look at the costs of private rented accomodation now, I paid more in rent than some do on mortgages.
The 'disaster' of Thatcherism lead to 14 years of unprecedented economic growth under new labour. Who I might add still ran up a crippling national debt, and sold off all the UKs gold reserves, and not only that announced when they were going to do it allowing market forces time to drive the cost down, so we received a fraction of what they were worth.
Without Thatcherism the UK would have degenerated into a 2nd rate economy, and country in the downward spiral in an economy that was crippled by corrupt unions.
Also with regards to the NHS, I am a nurse, there is an increasing population, with an increasing elderly %, with increasing technology and costs of medications. The current system is unsustainable. It needs reviewing, because it will collapse in on itself, maybe not today or tommorrow, but unless change and reform is implemented then it won't last for our children. So options are... 1) reform it, 2) cut back technology to 20, 30-40 years ago to make your money go further.
Your idea of healing Britain of the damage done, would be a blight on millions of families, economic stagnation, and collapsing infrastructure.
At this point I would say that I'm the grandson of a miner, in sheffield in the north and not some innherited wealtth of company owner.
If opposition to Thatcher makes you insane then I come from a crazy country.
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Owen Jones in the independent:
In the war led by Margaret Thatcher’s governments – against the left, the trade unions, the post-war consensus – her side was crushingly, devastatingly, humiliatingly victorious.
In the coming days, some on the right will attempt to snuff out criticism of her legacy, arguing that it is somehow disrespectful, spiteful or ghoulish. Absurd, of course: she was a politician – the most divisive in modern British history – and what she represented must of course be debated. They will use the moment of her passing to batter Thatcherism into the national psyche: that she somehow saved Britain from ruin, put the “great” back into “Great Britain”, and so forth. Those who grew up in the Britain that Thatcher built will be patronised: you were still learning how to walk at the height of her power. And that is why it is crucial to separate Thatcherism from the woman who spearheaded it.
Thatcherism was a national catastrophe, and we remain trapped by its consequences. As her former Chancellor Geoffrey Howe put it: “Her real triumph was to have transformed not just one party but two, so that when Labour did eventually return, the great bulk of Thatcherism was accepted as irreversible.”
We are in the midst of the third great economic collapse since the Second World War: all three have taken place since Thatcherism launched its great crusade. This current crisis has roots in the Thatcherite free market experiment, which wiped out much of the country’s industrial base in favour of a deregulated financial sector.
A poisoned “debate” about social security rages in Cameron’s Britain. It focuses on the idea that there are large numbers of people stuck on benefits. It is certainly true that there were more people languishing in long-term unemployment last year than there were in all forms of unemployment 40 years ago. In large part, this is a consequence of Thatcherism’s emptying communities of millions of secure, skilled industrial jobs. Large swathes of Britain – mining villages, steel towns and so on – were devastated, and never really recovered. Even when Britain was supposedly booming, the old industrial heartlands had high levels of what is rather clinically described as “economic inactivity”.
Five million people now languish on social housing waiting lists, while billions of pounds of housing benefit line the pockets of private landlords charging rip-off rents. The scarcity of housing turns communities against each other, as immigrants or anyone deemed less deserving are scapegoated. But the guilt really lies with the Thatcherite policy of right-to-buy and failure to replace the stock that was sold off.
Champions of Thatcherism hail the crippling of the trade unions, which were battered by anti-union laws, mass unemployment, and crushing defeats of strikes, not least after the rout of the iconic miners. This has not only left workers at the mercy of their bosses, but has made them poorer, too. Four years before the crisis began, the income of the bottom half was stagnating, while for the bottom third it actually began to decline – even as corporations were posting record profits. With no unions to stand their corner, workers’ living standards have long been squeezed – driving large numbers to cheap credit.
We could go on. Britain was one of the most equal Western European countries before the Thatcherite project began, and is now one of the most unequal. Thatcherism is not just alive and well: it courses through the veins of British political life. The current government goes where Thatcherism did not dare in its privatisation of the NHS and sledgehammering of the welfare state.
The challenge ahead is the same as it was yesterday: to tear down the whole edifice of Thatcherism, heal Britain of the damage done, and build a country run in the interests of working people. It’s a fight we must all fight. The champagne is on ice until we win it.
Well that was a well balanced piece... of typlical Grundian neo-socialist middle class nonsense. Whilst not everything Thatcher did was good nor was it all bad. That completly misses and forgets the strangle hold the unions had on the UK in the 70's, and the fact that iniquality was increasing in the UK since the 1950's.
For the record I am no hard right supporter. You only need to check my past postings on workers rights to see this. However I am angered by this king of blind left wing nonsense. People ask why we do not have the same kind of blind right wing support the US dose. We do, just that it is on the left.
Lets take some important points
In the coming days, some on the right will attempt to snuff out criticism of her legacy, arguing that it is somehow disrespectful, spiteful or ghoulish. Absurd, of course: she was a politician
The "right" is not attempting to do anything of the sort, only to suggest that now is not the time to have this debate in the main stream media. An attempt to shut down any criticism right at the start.
We are in the midst of the third great economic collapse since the Second World War: all three have taken place since Thatcherism launched its great crusade. This current crisis has roots in the Thatcherite free market experiment, which wiped out much of the country’s industrial base in favour of a deregulated financial sector.
So the 1973–75 recession never happend, and New Labour had no part in the current situation at all? What wiped out the country’s industrial base was the complete and utter refusal to modernise. BL was a joke. UK manufactureing was a joke. It was a running joke that we were always on strike and would walk out at the drop of a hat. Somthing had to be done. Maybe it was the wrong thing, but so was doing nothing, but since the unions refused ANY change there was little else that could be done.
trade unions, which were battered by anti-union laws, mass unemployment, and crushing defeats of strikes, not least after the rout of the iconic miners. This has not only left workers at the mercy of their bosses,
The problem is that the unions that were battered were not interested in workers, only in there own interests. As an example, in the 84-85 miners strike not all miners went on strike. The Nottinghamshire Miners' Association chose to not strike. To this day there is bitterness and anger over this. The unions at the time had the power to hold the country to ransom, and did time and again. I do feel that companys have too much power, but this is not just a matter of Thatcherism. This was not something that Labour could not undo. They had an opportunity too fully implement the working time directive in 2000 & 2003 yet chose to opt out.
I'm not going to go on. There is a blind belief amoung some that everything she did was wrong and that Labour can do no wrong. They have a following much like the US Right that follows them no matter what that without thinking. I do not think everything she did was right, or that everything other people did was wrong. This artical is a very bias peice.
For the record I come from South Yorkshire so I have seen the damage it did to both mining and heavy industry first hand. I have relatives that worked in these industrys. I have also seen the damage unions did and the way there policys damaged UK industry. Something we are only now managing to overcome as we regrow in modern manufacturing in places like Coventry and Oxford. What the north suffers from most is not Thatcherism or the loss of heavy industry, but being too far from London.
Also with regards to the NHS, I am a nurse, there is an increasing population, with an increasing elderly %, with increasing technology and costs of medications. The current system is unsustainable. It needs reviewing, because it will collapse in on itself, maybe not today or tommorrow, but unless change and reform is implemented then it won't last for our children. So options are... 1) reform it, 2) cut back technology to 20, 30-40 years ago to make your money go further.
Your idea of healing Britain of the damage done, would be a blight on millions of families, economic stagnation, and collapsing infrastructure.
At this point I would say that I'm the grandson of a miner, in sheffield in the north and not some innherited wealtth of company owner.
I'm a scot, but I'm disappointed thatcher has died. I was hoping she'd live long enough to see Scotland removed from the clutches of her party forever next year.
A cursary read of the wikipedia page will give you
After the assault concluded, the police conducted an investigation into the siege and the deaths of the two hostages and five terrorists, including the actions of the SAS. The soldiers' weapons were taken away for examination and, the following day, the soldiers themselves were interviewed at length by the police at the regiment's base in Hereford.[56] There was controversy over the deaths of two terrorists in the telex room, where the male hostages were held. Hostages later said in interviews that they had persuaded their captors to surrender and television footage appeared to show them throwing weapons out of the window and holding a white flag. The two SAS soldiers who killed the men both stated at the inquest into the terrorists' deaths that they believed the men had been reaching for weapons before they were shot. The inquest jury reached the verdict that the soldiers' actions were justifiable homicide (later known as "lawful killing").[/
This documentary features statements from those involved that outright states that the SAS went out of their way to kill the terrorists. One of the SAS says that Thatcher did her best not to explicitly say "kill them all", but it was heavily implied on numerous occasions.
The last line of that wiki entry says the inquiry found it was lawful.
If I have a gun and I take a hostage, I'd also have to accept getting shot as a possible consequence.
IMO - The fact they were all killed worked fairly well at persuading other terrorists not to try it over here. We didn't have any more seiges after that.
Like everything else in history, there is the myth, the reality, and somewhere in between. I'll hold my hands up and declare my left wing leanings before I start another rant and I'll also say I was in my youth during her premiership, so I'm better placed than some to comment.
Let's look at some of Thatcher's defining moments and put them in historical context.
The Falklands war: no mention that it was her government that ran down the defences beforehand that encouraged Argentina to attack in the first place.
The miners. Yeah, mining is a dirty and dangerous job, and Scargill should have had a ballot before the strike, but using MI5 to spy on union leaders, throwing thousands of people on the scrap heap, and then squandering millions of north sea oil revenues on dole money!! Sheer madness. Most of those mining towns are hotbeds of poverty and deprivation. That's her legacy.
Foreign policy: She did what every British PM has done since WW2 - danced to Washington's tune, so she was hardly radical in that sense.
Privatisation. Thanks to Thatcher, most of the UK's utilities were flogged to any foreign buyer. And yet, despite sitting on vast reserves of oil and gas, we're facing record fuel bills year after year, and paying foreign companies for the honour.
Policing: Anybody remember the inner city riots, the Hillsborough cover up, the police brutality, and the casual racism? I do. Thatcher is obviously not directly to blame for this, but she did encourage the police to adopt this culture. As long as she was winning the votes she needed, she didn't care that much for the rest of the country.
And finally, there is the poll tax, the support of apartheid South Africa, I could on.
I'm not happy to see anybody pass away, but I won't be shedding any tears for Thatcher.
Well that was a well balanced piece... of typlical Grundian neo-socialist middle class nonsense.
What did you expect? It's Owen Jones! Have you ever seen him on Question Time? The kid's a fool. He's basically a student union newsletter writer that someone's let loose on a major national newspaper. 'Independent' my arse.
My own standpoint is that she, as this countries leader, decided enough was enough and through some hard, possibly harsh, decisions and polices enabled the UK to stand tall again after some years of decline.
She gave the UK a choice - thrive or wither away.
I shall, in some way, pay my respects on the day of her funeal
Glasgow City Council urged people to stay away from the city's George Square after hundreds gathered to mark the death of Baroness Thatcher.
In a statement posted on their website, the council said it was concerned the gathering was intended to be a "party".
The event was organised by posts on social media.
It's believed the gathering took inspiration from the song George Square Thatcher Death Party by the Glasgow group Mogwai.
The council said it had become aware of plans for an event circulating on social media, and about 250 people gathered in the square outside the city chambers by early Monday evening.
The statement said: "Regardless of whether or not it's appropriate to have a party to celebrate someone dying, this event was organised without involvement or consent from the council and we have safety concerns for anyone attending.
"We urge people to stay away."
By around 22:00, the crowd was reported to have dispersed without incident.
The song that inspired it all... apparently...
Spoiler:
Compared with the impromptu royal wedding party that's a fairly paltry turn out.
Doctadeth wrote: There's a party in george square in Glasgow on because Maggie T passed on.
(scots)
Stay classy, Glasgow.
It doesn't matter what your politics are. Anyone who celebrates a 87 year old woman dying of a stroke following suffering from dementia, Is a contemptable human being.
It says nothing about thatcher, but says a lot more about them.
Doctadeth wrote: There's a party in george square in Glasgow on because Maggie T passed on.
(scots)
Stay classy, Glasgow.
=/ Aww I've got painting to do today.
And its not just Glasgow, there's tons of "celebrations" occurring across the country right now given that people have had the time to organise themselves. She may have been an old woman and all that, but bear in mind that she is viewed as being well... evil by a large number of British people. Her policy was that she only needed to keep 1/3rd of the British people happy to stay in government. The other 2/3rds don't have such a high opinion of her.
She did her best to make sure my country wasn't given the right to rule or represent itself, it doesn't matter what her good points were, that's a blow against the Scottish national identity.
Kilkrazy wrote: On a related note, an ex-colleague said his father's proud boast was that he was the only man in the world the SAS were afraid of.
He was a major in the Royal Army Dental Corps and he did their teeth.
I firmly believe British dentistry could be weaponized.
Believe? What do you think they were shooting? Bullets. No, the SAS is so lethal because it shoots...Teeth!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eggs wrote: I'm a scot, but I'm disappointed thatcher has died. I was hoping she'd live long enough to see Scotland removed from the clutches of her party forever next year.
Never! While everyone was busy complaining about Neville Chamberlain, he secretly commissioned a team of crack scientists with a mission. In 1957 they succeeded.
Deep in the bowels of White Chapel is a locked room. In that room is a creature. That creature has been bred for one purpose. That creature is.. FrankenEdward Longshanks. MUAHAHAH!
Hey its the best I can do without coffee in the morning.
EDIT: Its interesting how the UK media hate her. I saw a statiustic on TV. When she started unemployment was on the order of 13%. When she left it was 5% (IIRC). That doesn't sound like EVILLZ to me.
And its not just Glasgow, there's tons of "celebrations" occurring across the country right now given that people have had the time to organise themselves. She may have been an old woman and all that, but bear in mind that she is viewed as being well... evil by a large number of British people. Her policy was that she only needed to keep 1/3rd of the British people happy to stay in government. The other 2/3rds don't have such a high opinion of her.
She did her best to make sure my country wasn't given the right to rule or represent itself, it doesn't matter what her good points were, that's a blow against the Scottish national identity.
Now, all I know about Scotland I learned from Braveheart and the labels of whiskey bottles, but could she really have been old enough to have been around for the Acts of Union?
Unemployment had been rising throughout the 1970s as companies set about restructuring and modernising their businesses.
But it picked up speed after the Conservatives took power in 1979, rapidly rising to over three million in 1982.
Unemployment hit hardest in Northern Ireland, where one in five were out of work in the early 1980s, along with the industrial areas of northern England and Scotland.
An economic boom later in the decade helped to bring unemployment down, but it was a slow process.
She said that as long as she was in power Scotland would never have its own parliament. So she stripped the country of its resources and belittled its people without them having the means to fight back against her equivocally in government. Its a people's right to govern themselves and all that, or at least that's been one of the messages of the last century.
Wyrmalla wrote: She said that as long as she was in power Scotland would never have its own parliament. So she stripped the country of its resources and belittled its people without them having the means to fight back against her equivocally in government. Its a people's right to govern themselves and all that, or at least that's been one of the messages of the last century.
Hadn't there not been a Scottish parliament since the early 1700s? I thought it was combined when the UK was formed.
Sad news. I'm gonna miss her. One of the best politicians we've ever had.
Of course, Maggie being Maggie, she's probably going to barge her way out of the afterlife and emerge from the floor of the House of Commons in a cloud of flame, rocking an electric guitar with an underslung machine gun, wearing a trenchcoat, bellowing "I'm back, bitches!".
Wyrmalla wrote: She said that as long as she was in power Scotland would never have its own parliament. So she stripped the country of its resources and belittled its people without them having the means to fight back against her equivocally in government. Its a people's right to govern themselves and all that, or at least that's been one of the messages of the last century.
Not seeing the problem. Scotland is the size of my closet, and its damp, like all the time. Everyone has marbles in their mouths when they talk. How can you have a Parliament when everyone has marbles in their mouths and go "Kblar Blar Blar WALLLACE!!!! Blar burrrrrr" all the time and can't understand each other? Next you'll be telling me nonsense about how the workweek should only be 60 hours a week and women should have the vote. Nonsense!
OT but what is up with those accents? I get the "TV/royal" accent (which is really cool wit da wimminz), but those city accents in Snatch and Dr. Who. Wo dude WTH? OI! Its like everyone decided to never actually enunciate any word whatsoever. Thats why the Germans couldn't conquer the UK. It wasn't Lord Olivier and a bunch of guys in Spitfires, it was the fact that the Germans could never understand anyone and figure out where they hell they were at.
Wyrmalla wrote: She said that as long as she was in power Scotland would never have its own parliament. So she stripped the country of its resources and belittled its people without them having the means to fight back against her equivocally in government. Its a people's right to govern themselves and all that, or at least that's been one of the messages of the last century.
Hadn't there not been a Scottish parliament since the early 1700s? I thought it was combined when the UK was formed.
It was devolved during the union yes. However when the Scottish people started campaigning to found a new one the British government did its damnedest to make sure it couldn't. Scotland's still part of Britain, we just have more say about things effecting our country nowadays. If Scotland had had a parliament back in the eighties we'd still have our oil. Heck we would have been independant from the UK in 1979 if enouch people had shown up for the referendum (there was enough "yes" votes for Scotland to become independant, but it didn't represent enough of the population due to no shows for it to occur). =P
I'll reiterate that people should have the right to govern themselves. Go say to an American/Australian/Canadian/Indian, etc that they shouldn't have gotten so uppity about Britain ruling them and see what happens.
Wyrmalla wrote: I'll reiterate that people should have the right to govern themselves. Go say to an American/Australian/Canadian/Indian, etc that they shouldn't have gotten so uppity about Britain ruling them and see what happens.
Well, I can't speak for Canadians, Australians, or Indians, but we'll point out that we won the war, and that now we're a union of fifty separate states that have already decided what we do if one or more decide they want to go off and form their own separate, non-subordinate government. It involves guns.
Wyrmalla wrote: I'll reiterate that people should have the right to govern themselves. Go say to an American/Australian/Canadian/Indian, etc that they shouldn't have gotten so uppity about Britain ruling them and see what happens.
Well, I can't speak for Canadians, Australians, or Indians, but we'll point out that we won the war, and that now we're a union of fifty separate states that have already decided what we do if one or more decide they want to go off and form their own separate, non-subordinate government. It involves guns.
Yes, and the Irish did just the same back in the 20's. The British government was fairly conservative about giving its people ways of representing themselves. The Scottish parliament in question wasn't to represent Scotland as an independent nation, it was just to give Scotland more say in the ruling of Britain (ie England and the other ones). But that would've rested power from the Tories at the time, and their rule had to be absolute. The current Scottish independence movement is a result of the Scots not thinking that we have enough say in the ruling of our own country. Again, the English government is against it and not even open to entertaining Scotland remaining part of Britain, but just with the same amount of say as them.
Maybe she should just go to war again to get some more rights... =)
Wyrmalla wrote: I'll reiterate that people should have the right to govern themselves. Go say to an American/Australian/Canadian/Indian, etc that they shouldn't have gotten so uppity about Britain ruling them and see what happens.
Well, I can't speak for Canadians, Australians, or Indians, but we'll point out that we won the war, and that now we're a union of fifty separate states that have already decided what we do if one or more decide they want to go off and form their own separate, non-subordinate government. It involves guns.
Exactly. You only get to be free if you know, become free. Whining about it is just annoying, like French.
Wyrmalla wrote: I'll reiterate that people should have the right to govern themselves. Go say to an American/Australian/Canadian/Indian, etc that they shouldn't have gotten so uppity about Britain ruling them and see what happens.
Well, I can't speak for Canadians, Australians, or Indians, but we'll point out that we won the war, and that now we're a union of fifty separate states that have already decided what we do if one or more decide they want to go off and form their own separate, non-subordinate government. It involves guns.
Yes, and the Irish did just the same back in the 20's. The British government was fairly conservative about giving its people ways of representing themselves. The Scottish parliament in question wasn't to represent Scotland as an independent nation, it was just to give Scotland more say in the ruling of Britain (ie England and the other ones). But that would've rested power from the Tories at the time, and their rule had to be absolute. The current Scottish independence movement is a result of the Scots not thinking that we have enough say in the ruling of our own country. Again, the English government is against it and not even open to entertaining Scotland remaining part of Britain, but just with the same amount of say as them.
Maybe she should just go to war again to get some more rights... =)
Now you're thinking properly. You and England should a agree to a right proper scrum outside Kent for old time sake. No no war - Rugby! Winner gets the country. Loser gets haggis.
Can't stand her! She robbed me of the opportunity to slave away in a dark and freezing coal mine for pennies then die at forty due to a respiratory disease leaving my family destitute.
Thanks to her vindictive and evil policies i have to work in a clean, heated office and make a decent wage! the temerity of the woman!
On a more serious note it's rather difficult for me to have a real opinion of Thatcher (that's not just other peoples regurgitated opinion) due to the fact that i was, you know, 5 years old when she left office.
Wyrmalla wrote: Heck we would have been independant from the UK in 1979 if enouch people had shown up for the referendum (there was enough "yes" votes for Scotland to become independant, but it didn't represent enough of the population due to no shows for it to occur). =P
- I read that as 'more people in scotland don't give a about politics than want to govern themselves'
Just over half of us in the uk think she was good for Britain.
MrDwhitey wrote: I have no issue with people disliking, hating policies and decisions enacted by Thatcher.
No issue with them articulating that either, but taking this savage glee in her death is something I do have issue with.
I would agree with this statement by Lord Mandelson
I'm not sure whether I saw her as an inspiration. I certainly saw her as a force to be reckoned with, I mean a political and electoral force that was almost overwhelming.
I think also, on reflection, to be honest, I would say that she introduced, she ushered in, a timely and necessary overhaul of the UK economy in many ways.
The problem I have with that reflection though is that I think in other ways she was too indifferent to the social consequences of the economic changes she was undertaking.
Also, comparing her to Hitler was easily one of the stupidest things I've read on dakka, and boy have I seen some doozies.
The real point to notice is that New Labour quietly continued Thatcherism in all its forms, especially harsh social reform. Did they undo the 'damage' of Thatcherism. No. And they never will because they know that socialism doesnt work, Thatcherism does and with a little spin they can constantly pass off all the negative implications as 'Tory caused. All that requires to succeed is enough half-backed ignorant fools to look at the old left-right balance and beleive we live in the politics of the sixties and seventies. Comments like those from Wyrmalia prove such ifgnorance is alive and kicking.
Socialists. Think a moment (if you can). Which is 'worse from a left wing point of view?
1. A Tory leader who says, for the sake of our collective futures the industry of the north will pay. There will be hardship but the nation will remain.
2. A Labour leader who says, for the sake of our collective futures the industry of the north will continue to pay, we will do nothing about it. However we will point to our predecessors and blame them and tell the working lcass we are their saviours while crushing the unions even further than Thatcher did. All we ask of you is to be stupid enough to vote for the Red Rose on the vain hope we actually give a feth about you.
Um... The British Government is essentially the English government with mild input from the others. England has the largest population, thus it gets the most say. if the English say they want something to happen then the other countries have to do it, even if they vote against it. Thus its the case that if say every Scottish Mp were to vote against a measure in parliament, but the English mp voted against it, the policy wouldn't pass. That policy could be something to do about the welfare of Britain, or just that of Scotland. It doesn't matter, if its discussed in the British parliament its a moot point on who the point actually effects.
I kind of like the idea that my government can do something without the English one waying in constantly.
Just over half of us in the uk think she was good for Britain.
Yes, and shall we look at the population numbers for Britain? Not even 20% of the British population lives outside of England. So in actuality you mean of the 80% of English people, 50% thought her term was good. Of that 50% how many of those people live in the South East of England, one of the highest population centers, how many said that they were positive?
You want freedom? Invade Kent. With claymores. Be sure to shout out "yooooooooo can take ourrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr lives, yoool nevahrrrrrrrr taaaaaaaaaaake our FreDDDDDDoMMM! Glarrrrr!" Come on, you know you want to.
Um... The British Government is essentially the English government with mild input from the others. England has the largest population, thus it gets the most say. if the English say they want something to happen then the other countries have to do it, even if they vote against it. Thus its the case that if say every Scottish Mp were to vote against a measure in parliament, but the English mp voted against it, the policy wouldn't pass. That policy could be something to do about the welfare of Britain, or just that of Scotland. It doesn't matter, if its discussed in the British parliament its a moot point on who the point actually effects.
I kind of like the idea that my government can do something without the English one waying in constantly.
Just over half of us in the uk think she was good for Britain.
Yes, and shall we look at the population numbers for Britain? Not even 20% of the British population lives outside of England. So in actuality you mean of the 80% of English people, 50% thought her term was good. Of that 50% how many of those people live in the South East of England, one of the highest population centers, how many said that they were positive?
Equality in government? So how come people in England have to pay for education? If I lived in scotland, I currently wouldn't owe 16k or so. That must've been a decision made when the english mp's were all asleep and couldn't argue
The poll wasn't conducted by me - so I don't mean any % of anywhere Here's some better figures for you from later in the article. ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 965 adults aged 18+ online on the afternoon of 8 April 2013.
So 482.5 people thought she was good for britain. In an internet poll.
According to the article "More than half (55%) of English voters rate Thatcher as having been good for Britain, compared with 34% of the Welsh respondents questioned, and just 23% of Scots. And within that overall English score there is another divide: in the south fully 60% of voters judge her record as good against 47% who say the same thing in the north."
My best suggestion would be that you read The Spirit Level, but basically more equal societies have lower crime, mental illness, violence and other undesirable things.
Um... The British Government is essentially the English government with mild input from the others. England has the largest population, thus it gets the most say. if the English say they want something to happen then the other countries have to do it, even if they vote against it. Thus its the case that if say every Scottish Mp were to vote against a measure in parliament, but the English mp voted against it, the policy wouldn't pass. That policy could be something to do about the welfare of Britain, or just that of Scotland. It doesn't matter, if its discussed in the British parliament its a moot point on who the point actually effects.
I kind of like the idea that my government can do something without the English one waying in constantly.
Just over half of us in the uk think she was good for Britain.
Yes, and shall we look at the population numbers for Britain? Not even 20% of the British population lives outside of England. So in actuality you mean of the 80% of English people, 50% thought her term was good. Of that 50% how many of those people live in the South East of England, one of the highest population centers, how many said that they were positive?
Equality in government?
So how come people in England have to pay for education? If I lived in scotland, I currently wouldn't owe 16k or so. That must've been a decision made when the english mp's were all asleep and couldn't argue
The poll wasn't conducted by me - so I don't mean any % of anywhere Here's some better figures for you from later in the article.
ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 965 adults aged 18+ online on the afternoon of 8 April 2013.
So 482.5 people thought she was good for britain. In an internet poll.
According to the article "More than half (55%) of English voters rate Thatcher as having been good for Britain, compared with 34% of the Welsh respondents questioned, and just 23% of Scots. And within that overall English score there is another divide: in the south fully 60% of voters judge her record as good against 47% who say the same thing in the north."
I linked to it as I though it was interesting.
Yay, so we managed to get a domestic policy put through, Big woot. Its up to the English government if they want to have "free" education. That doesn't change the point that the English government still gets a say in a great many areas of Scottish politics that it shouldn't.
0.o Throwing out numbers that clarify that those who weren't receiving the poor end of her policies is your point? There's one Tory MP in the whole of Scotland now, (who is generally regarded as being a lapdog for Cameron, seeing as she said that the Scottish people are "wasters". ...Way to represent your people) what's that say for people's respect for the Tory party nowadays? The Tory party are pariahs in Scottish politics because of her. When the Conservatives got voted into government a few years ago it nothing but improve the independence movement. The Scottish people just looked down south and thought, "wow, they voted that lot in again. Better get away quick before they screw our country up another time".
Oh look one of their first policies was to sell off Sherwood Forest for logging...
The poll wasn't conducted by me - so I don't mean any % of anywhere Here's some better figures for you from later in the article.
ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 965 adults aged 18+ online on the afternoon of 8 April 2013.
So 482.5 people thought she was good for britain. In an internet poll.
According to the article "More than half (55%) of English voters rate Thatcher as having been good for Britain, compared with 34% of the Welsh respondents questioned, and just 23% of Scots. And within that overall English score there is another divide: in the south fully 60% of voters judge her record as good against 47% who say the same thing in the north."
I linked to it as I though it was interesting.
I sense an "I'm alright Jack" attitude to those polled, which is itself a product of her idealism. I hope as time goes on we can start caring about things which don't effect us, but then you look at how many British people are ok with taking money off the already poor disabled and it doesn't look good.
You know you might be on the wrong side when a former member of the IRA's Army Council at the time they tried to assassinate her is opposed to street parties celebrating her death
Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness has said people should not celebrate the death of Baroness Thatcher.
The former prime minister died on Monday aged 87 after suffering a stroke while staying at the Ritz hotel in central London.
Later on Monday, "street parties" were held in Londonderry and west Belfast as well as other parts of the UK.
In a tweet, Mr McGuinness said people should "resist celebrating the death of Margaret Thatcher".
He added: "She was not a peacemaker but it is a mistake to allow her death to poison our minds."
Yay, so we managed to get a domestic policy put through, Big woot. Its up to the English government if they want to have "free" education. That doesn't change the point that the English government still gets a say in a great many areas of Scottish politics that it shouldn't.
0.o Throwing out numbers that clarify that those who weren't receiving the poor end of her policies is your point? There's one Tory MP in the whole of Scotland now, (who is generally regarded as being a lapdog for Cameron, seeing as she said that the Scottish people are "wasters". ...Way to represent your people) what's that say for people's respect for the Tory party nowadays? The Tory party are pariahs in Scottish politics because of her. When the Conservatives got voted into government a few years ago it nothing but improve the independence movement. The Scottish people just looked down south and thought, "wow, they voted that lot in again. Better get away quick before they screw our country up another time".
Oh look one of their first policies was to sell off Sherwood Forest for logging...
How are you managing to argue with me?
I linked to an article which seemed relevant and mildly interesting. I've not mentioned my personal politics. If you read the figures I quoted they support what you're saying?
As an aside, I do like the way the fact I owe 16k for something that you guys get for free is swept under the carpet though
And we didn't vote our current government in. We couldn't make our minds up which bunch of twerps we wanted in power, so we got the government no one wanted. I used to vote lib dem as they said they'd get rid of tuition fees (this being a bug bear of mine and the only reason I'm in debt). They didn't.
If you can get out of this coalition crap then I envy you.
PS - Sherwood forest is still there... I've seen it
If Scotland goes, and Texas invades Scotland - because we have a battleship sitting around with nothing to do - would England do anything? If its a problem, what if we helped you with the Falklands. Could we have Scotland then? Is Scotland big enough to fit twin cab double dooleys? Can Scots learn a civilized language like Spanish? What if we just allowed conquered Scotland and gave it to the Comanche nation and the Kiowas? Would that be a problem? I mean you know Wallace was the first Texan right?
If Texas invades Scotland, then Canada, then Tahiti, can we say the sun never sets on the Lone Star State? Would Mexico get nervous?
^^ Heh, yeah, I may have misconstrued you point a tad there.
There was a nice little bit on the BBC there about the Tory part and its politics. They want money, it doesn't matter how they get it. As long as the country appears to be making money they're happy. Thus you get massive cuts to everywhere in the budget and the selling off of resources. That appears to increase the funds in the treasury, but it only serves to lower the quality of life in the UK for the average person. But then again how many of the Tory party were once amongst the common plebs before they got into power? They're the rich telling the poor what to do because they of course know best. Tell that to the people out on the streets because you cut their benefits because they weren't working (in a country where there's no jobs...).
If Scotland goes, and Texas invades Scotland - because we have a battleship sitting around with nothing to do - would England do anything?
If Texas invades Scotland, then Canada, then Tahiti, can we say the sun never sets on the Lone Star State?
Thatcher sold the oil to private investors. The majority no longer owned by the Scottish government. However Westminster has said that Britain gets the oil, not youknow the country in which the oil actually resides. Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister, however has essentially told Cameron to shove it in that respect.
Also I'd note that Scotland does contribute a rather large number of soldiers to the British army and is one of the primary training locations for it. Its not as if we can't defend ourselves. Though I'd also point out that the British military has received cuts as of late. Coincidentally the Scottish elements of it have been cut to a larger extent than the other country's. That's in no way because the British government doesn't want us Scots running off with a load of kit and men if we go independent. Of course not...
Not for its own sake but there are various aspects of society that arguably are reasons for more equality rather than less.
Such as? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just curious about your take on it.
I can't think why everyone in a modern society would accept a situation of extreme inequality, which would benefit only a small elite, so a certain amount of levelling is a good thing for peace and tranquility.
So I make the basic assumption that we want everyone in our society to have a reasonable chance of a happy, productive life. Obviously that can't be imposed by society but we can try to set up conditions that make it more possible for people to fulfil their potential.
One example of this is the provision of educational opportunities. We cannot make everyone intelligent and hard-working, but we can try to educate people to a level their abilities enable them to achieve. The return on this investment would be a more productive society thanks to better science, management, and so on.
If you look at the UK today, education provision is all over the place with crappy state schools in poor areas, the middle class using house purchasing power to get into the good state schools, and the wealthy using their wealth to buy top class education.
The situation at university is just as bad, with the Scottish funding free places while the English are being challenged with high fees.
The general effect of this is that people are not educated to the level they have the talent for. Bright working class children are overlooked, while upper/middle-class children of average ability get coached into the best universities and from there sometimes into good jobs they probably do badly, thus perpetuating the cycle and also screwing stuff up along the way.
So I would argue that the education system should aim to educate everyone equally well.
Thatcher sold the oil to private investors. The majority no longer owned by the Scottish government. However Westminster has said that Britain gets the oil, not youknow the country in which the oil actually resides. Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister, however has essentially told Cameron to shove it in that respect.
Go to a pub in Lerwick and start spouting off about "Scottish Oil" and see how long you last... The majoraty feeling in Shetland is that they will vote not to be independant of the UK unless they can be completly independant, but that the Scottish Govenment have time and again ignored any attempt at self govenence by a comunity that is far more isolated from Edinburgh than Edinburgh from London.
Seriously, get the chip off your sholder and stop taking everything Alex Salmond says as fact. It is massivly more complex than you are making out. The British Govenment dose not hate Scotland. You are commeing across like a GCSE politics student. Lots of broad statements and incorrect infomation.
Thatcher sold the oil to private investors. The majority no longer owned by the Scottish government. However Westminster has said that Britain gets the oil, not youknow the country in which the oil actually resides. Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister, however has essentially told Cameron to shove it in that respect.
Go to a pub in Lerwick and start spouting off about "Scottish Oil" and see how long you last... The majoraty feeling in Shetland is that they will vote not to be independant of the UK unless they can be completly independant, but that the Scottish Govenment have time and again ignored any attempt at self govenence by a comunity that is far more isolated from Edinburgh than Edinburgh from London.
Seriously, get the chip off your sholder and stop taking everything Alex Salmond says as fact. It is massivly more complex than you are making out. The British Govenment dose not hate Scotland. You are commeing across like a GCSE politics student. Lots of broad statements and incorrect infomation.
Yes and its ever so hard to concisely put across a full opinion over a medium like a forum. I didn't vote for the SNP in the last election, and didn't have much of a high opinion for them before it, but they are a party that represents my country's nationalism, so I feel as though I should respect their points. The current government are Tories. I don't respect them in any way because of their current policies. What they did to my country in the past just adds to my low opinion of them.
In fact if Scotland were to become independent its been surmised that he'll erect a statue to himself in the Glasgow' George Square alongside the other great figures of Scotland. It'll be the statue of Adonis with his head crudely affixed, in one hand a pie, and the other pointing triumphantly to the local Gregg's, ushering the people to the promised land. =P
I didn't vote for the SNP in the last election, and didn't have much of a high opinion for them before it, but they are a party that represents my country's nationalism, so I feel as though I should respect their points.
It truly is the blind leading the blind. Good luck with your independence and all that .
Automatically Appended Next Post: [quote=Wyrmalla 519266 5484097 6ce94532b43987836a322963d0c3c2ee.jpg
Also I'd note that Scotland does contribute a rather large number of soldiers to the British army and is one of the primary training locations for it. Its not as if we can't defend ourselves. Though I'd also point out that the British military has received cuts as of late. Coincidentally the Scottish elements of it have been cut to a larger extent than the other country's. That's in no way because the British government doesn't want us Scots running off with a load of kit and men if we go independent. Of course not...
Not for its own sake but there are various aspects of society that arguably are reasons for more equality rather than less.
Such as? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just curious about your take on it.
I can't think why everyone in a modern society would accept a situation of extreme inequality, which would benefit only a small elite, so a certain amount of levelling is a good thing for peace and tranquility.
So I make the basic assumption that we want everyone in our society to have a reasonable chance of a happy, productive life. Obviously that can't be imposed by society but we can try to set up conditions that make it more possible for people to fulfil their potential.
Do we not have that now?
One example of this is the provision of educational opportunities. We cannot make everyone intelligent and hard-working, but we can try to educate people to a level their abilities enable them to achieve. The return on this investment would be a more productive society thanks to better science, management, and so on.
If you look at the UK today, education provision is all over the place with crappy state schools in poor areas, the middle class using house purchasing power to get into the good state schools, and the wealthy using their wealth to buy top class education.
The situation at university is just as bad, with the Scottish funding free places while the English are being challenged with high fees.
The general effect of this is that people are not educated to the level they have the talent for. Bright working class children are overlooked, while upper/middle-class children of average ability get coached into the best universities and from there sometimes into good jobs they probably do badly, thus perpetuating the cycle and also screwing stuff up along the way.
See, I would challenge that. There's a tendency to cling to economic determinism when it comes to educational achievement, which is unhealthy, and clearly hasn't worked. If it was a simple case of throwing money at problems, why don't more children from deprived backgrounds succeed, in the wake of all the money spent by Labour on the lower strata of society? Frankly it's insulting to assume that just because a person is poor they will not be able to access education. Good education is not about money, or even facilities, it's about time. Giving kids time, yes at school, but also at home. Encouragement also counts for a lot. The fact is, kids from deprived backgrounds rarely get enough time and encouragement from their parents when it comes to education. They come from backgrounds that don't value educational achievement. I've seen it first hand. Private schools aren't space-age education pods. I currently work in one, and I was pretty shocked at the quality of facilities. Compare that to the school I went to back in Middlesbrough and the difference is night and day. In the last two decades, Teesside has had several state-of-the-art schools built there, with the very latest technology and beautiful new glass and steel buildings. Do they improve the lot of underprivileged kids? Uh, no. Not really. Unity City Academy, a school right slap-bang in the middle of one of the poorest areas of the town, lasted four low-achieving years.
What needs to change is culture, not the amount of money. Parents that send their kids to private school care about the educational outcomes of their children, in fact, most kids who achieve highly do so because their parents care. I didn't succeed the first time round because My mum was on her own and was working two jobs, which meant she didn't have the time to make sure I attended to my studies, even though my school was excellent. I ended up going to university as a mature student, and found the barriers to doing so to be non-existent. Schools can only do so much, basically. Sooner or later we're going to realise that personal responsibility is not the just the best way, it's the only way. It's how to engender that responsibility that is the challenge.
I think British society has undeniably become less equal than it was 50 years ago.
However you are right that throwing money at a problem doesn't in itself cure it.
My argument was not that specifically education needs to be fixed in this specific way and no other, it was an attempt to show that "levelling" does have a genuinely productive purpose other than simply for its own sake.
There is no reason for anyone from Ireland, Wales or Scotland to mourn her passing. She is the poster image of the hated shown by England towards the other members of the United Kingdom.
Only when independence is finally achieved, will we be able to protect Scotland from the destructive, hate-mongering tories and Westminster. What Thatcher did should never happen again, yet it currently is...under Cameron's rule.
You know you might be on the wrong side when a former member of the IRA's Army Council at the time they tried to assassinate her is opposed to street parties celebrating her death
Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness has said people should not celebrate the death of Baroness Thatcher.
The former prime minister died on Monday aged 87 after suffering a stroke while staying at the Ritz hotel in central London.
Later on Monday, "street parties" were held in Londonderry and west Belfast as well as other parts of the UK.
In a tweet, Mr McGuinness said people should "resist celebrating the death of Margaret Thatcher".
He added: "She was not a peacemaker but it is a mistake to allow her death to poison our minds."
Yep. If an IRA Army Council member is setting a better standard of behavior towards someone who was undoubtedly an enemy of the IRA, and probably signed orders for the SAS to hunt him down, torture him and kill him, and certainly did set policies that killed friends and comrades... you should have a long sit with yourself and reconsider your personal behavior.
I see that the Scottish Persecution Complex is showing itself once more.
Lets look at the check list.
Scottish? Yes
Lived in Glasgow during Thatcher? Yes.
Had to live through Poll Tax? Yes.
Okay I get yes for all three, so I guess that means I'm allowed to comment.
The death of Thatcher is not a cause of celebration. Having to live through the brownouts, mounting rubbish, 3 day week, rolling strikes, worker intimidation meant that I was pleased that Thatcher came to power. Whether you agreed with her policies or not, you would have to be wilfully blind and/or ingnorant not to say that something had to be done to address the problems. Thatcher had the discipline to take a course of action and see it through, right or wrong.
If you don't like Thatchers legacy, then get 'into' politics, get elected and champion bills and parlimentary acts that will change the governments' course. As it is, half the voters don't even bother to vote. Apathy loses you the right to complain.
He's saying that she was so *evil that as long as people continue thinking about her she'll continue having power over them. In no way is he implying that he laments her death or thinks its anything but a good thing for his country I don't think. He outlived her, so I guess he'd get the last laugh on the matter, that is if he'd bother to indulge the woman. =P
Wyrmalla wrote: He's saying that she was so *evil that as long as people continue thinking about her she'll continue having power over them. In no way is he implying that he laments her death or thinks its anything but a good thing for his country I don't think. He outlived her, so I guess he'd get the last laugh the matter, that is if he'd bother to indulge the woman. =P
Lik
As to the motivations why doesn't matter. He doesn't have to like her. Or even respect her. But there is a certain self pride in examining your own actions, and not lowering yourself to acting like an animal.
Wyrmalla wrote: He's saying that she was so *evil that as long as people continue thinking about her she'll continue having power over them. In no way is he implying that he laments her death or thinks its anything but a good thing for his country I don't think. He outlived her, so I guess he'd get the last laugh on the matter, that is if he'd bother to indulge the woman. =P
Presumably NI protestants will be dancing in the streets when he finally meets his long-deserved end. I wonder what you'd make of that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I think British society has undeniably become less equal than it was 50 years ago.
It's also more prosperous. When young 'underprivileged' rioters are filming their exploits on smart-phones, yet still pleading poverty, you know something's not quite right. I still remember when we got our first VHS player. It was an event.
Wyrmalla wrote: He's saying that she was so *evil that as long as people continue thinking about her she'll continue having power over them. In no way is he implying that he laments her death or thinks its anything but a good thing for his country I don't think. He outlived her, so I guess he'd get the last laugh the matter, that is if he'd bother to indulge the woman. =P
Lik
As to the motivations why doesn't matter. He doesn't have to like her. Or even respect her. But there is a certain self pride in examining your own actions, and not lowering yourself to acting like an animal.
Exactly. Behaving like a civilized human being doesn't mean you dislike someone. Though honestly his apathy might prove he dislikes the Baroness more then you and the rest of your ilk's constant childish cawing. Remember the opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference.
Wyrmalla wrote: He's saying that she was so *evil that as long as people continue thinking about her she'll continue having power over them. In no way is he implying that he laments her death or thinks its anything but a good thing for his country I don't think.
No, that's what you are implying based on your own personal prejudices, which you have lain bare for all to see.
Regardless of what his own personal and private thoughts may be, the fact that he can treat someone who may be considered at one point a mortal enemy with a class and decency beyond many others is quite telling.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: and probably signed orders for the SAS to hunt him down, torture him and kill him, and certainly did set policies that killed friends and comrades
Would you like to provide evidence of your claim that British Troops were ordered to hunt him down , torture him and kill him. As far as I knew he lived in Derry quite openly and would the time he spent in jail not make it even easier for him to be found by your fictional SAS Death Squad.
Hesh_Tank_On wrote: Would you like to provide evidence of your claim that British Troops were ordered to hunt him down , torture him and kill him. As far as I knew he lived in Derry quite openly and would the time he spent in jail not make it even easier for him to be found by your fictional SAS Death Squad.
Stop claiming as a fact that which was not presented as such;
KalashnikovMarine wrote: and probably signed orders for the SAS to hunt him down, torture him and kill him, and certainly did set policies that killed friends and comrades
Probably. As in may have, there is a chance that, there is the possibility that. Not - a certainty that yes she gave those orders.
Albatross wrote: It's also more prosperous. When young 'underprivileged' rioters are filming their exploits on smart-phones, yet still pleading poverty, you know something's not quite right. I still remember when we got our first VHS player. It was an event.
Couldn't afford any tapes, mind.
Hey, welcome to the ranks of anarcho-capitalist Tea Party types, by the way.
Albatross wrote: It's also more prosperous. When young 'underprivileged' rioters are filming their exploits on smart-phones, yet still pleading poverty
On the bright side they'll probably upload them on youtube and it'll end up as evidence, saving the taxpayer some money in warrants for evidence
Albatross wrote: It's also more prosperous. When young 'underprivileged' rioters are filming their exploits on smart-phones, yet still pleading poverty
On the bright side they'll probably upload them on youtube and it'll end up as evidence, saving the taxpayer some money in warrants for evidence
Hey... isn't that a plot in Michael Caine's "Henry Brown"??
Hesh_Tank_On wrote: Would you like to provide evidence of your claim that British Troops were ordered to hunt him down , torture him and kill him. As far as I knew he lived in Derry quite openly and would the time he spent in jail not make it even easier for him to be found by your fictional SAS Death Squad.
Stop claiming as a fact that which was not presented as such;
KalashnikovMarine wrote: and probably signed orders for the SAS to hunt him down, torture him and kill him, and certainly did set policies that killed friends and comrades
Probably. As in may have, there is a chance that, there is the possibility that. Not - a certainty that yes she gave those orders.
I have pointed out how easy it would be to find him. He is still alive, British Troops didn't hunt him down and didn't torture him so the chances that an order was signed by Thatcher were "probably" not at all. He is entitled to his opinion however to claim that British Troops would be ordered to torture anyone is wrong on so many levels.
Hesh_Tank_On wrote: I have pointed out how easy it would be to find him. He is still alive, British Troops didn't hunt him down and didn't torture him so the chances that an order was signed by Thatcher were "probably" not at all. He is entitled to his opinion however to claim that British Troops would be ordered to torture anyone is wrong on so many levels.
There were some Brits in the task forces that floated through Camp Nama at various points, so I wouldn't get too worked up.
Hesh_Tank_On wrote: I have pointed out how easy it would be to find him. He is still alive, British Troops didn't hunt him down and didn't torture him so the chances that an order was signed by Thatcher were "probably" not at all. He is entitled to your opinion however to claim that British Troops would be ordered to torture anyone is wrong on so many levels.
He is entitled to my opinion? Wait, what? He never stated as a fact out that British troops were ordered to carry out an assassination or abduction mission. He said that there was the possibility that they may have been. All I did was to point out that you quoted someone, mis-read or ignored the content and then proceeded to make demands for evidence based on an argument that was more in your own mind than the screen.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As far as your claim that British soldiers wouldn't torture anyone a quick search on Google for "British Army Torture" brings up a lot of results. You can also look into "Shoot to kill" too
Hesh_Tank_On wrote: I have pointed out how easy it would be to find him. He is still alive, British Troops didn't hunt him down and didn't torture him so the chances that an order was signed by Thatcher were "probably" not at all. He is entitled to your opinion however to claim that British Troops would be ordered to torture anyone is wrong on so many levels.
He is entitled to my opinion? Wait, what? He never stated as a fact out that British troops were ordered to carry out an assassination or abduction mission. He said that there was the possibility that they may have been. All I did was to point out that you quoted someone, mis-read or ignored the content and then proceeded to make demands for evidence based on an argument that was more in your own mind than the screen.
So are You saying as long as you put the word "probably" in front of any claim you can just ignore the need for evidence? He didn't say it was possible he said it was probable there is a big difference between the 2 words in UK English.
Thatcher may have had her faults but signing off on torture is not one of them.
Hesh_Tank_On wrote: I have pointed out how easy it would be to find him. He is still alive, British Troops didn't hunt him down and didn't torture him so the chances that an order was signed by Thatcher were "probably" not at all. He is entitled to your opinion however to claim that British Troops would be ordered to torture anyone is wrong on so many levels.
He is entitled to my opinion? Wait, what? He never stated as a fact out that British troops were ordered to carry out an assassination or abduction mission. He said that there was the possibility that they may have been.
There's a difference between 'possible' and 'probable'. Someone really needs to back up an assertion if they claim it is 'probable'.
Hesh_Tank_On wrote: So are You saying as long as you put the word "probably" in front of any claim you can just ignore the need for evidence? He didn't say it was possible he said it was probable there is a big difference between the 2 words in UK English.
Thatcher may have had her faults but signing off on torture is not one of them.
I'm neither claiming that she signed off on torture, nor am I saying she did not. What I am saying is that if someone raises something as a possibility you shouldn't attempt to treat it as though it is a fact.
Possible - A person or thing that has the potential to become or do something
Probable - Likely to be the case or to happen.
Neither of these are statements of fact and their inclusion was obviously speculation.
Feel free to disregard the rest of my post though.
Feel free to disregard the rest of my post though.
Was this really needed? As we are going off topic feel free to continue in PM's .
However I stand by my view that in a thread about Baroness Thatcher if someone claims that it was probable that she ordered the torture and murder of Martin McGuinness they need to provide evidence.
If you want to treat speculation as facts be my guest, however speculation is just that - speculation.
Hesh_Tank_On wrote: Was this really needed? As we are going off topic feel free to continue in PM's .
You brought the facts into issue, thus diverting the thread, and then decided it was best to ignore them when challenged. You know where to find me if you want to continue this.
Wyrmalla wrote: He's saying that she was so *evil that as long as people continue thinking about her she'll continue having power over them. In no way is he implying that he laments her death or thinks its anything but a good thing for his country I don't think. He outlived her, so I guess he'd get the last laugh on the matter, that is if he'd bother to indulge the woman. =P
Presumably NI protestants will be dancing in the streets when he finally meets his long-deserved end. I wonder what you'd make of that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I think British society has undeniably become less equal than it was 50 years ago.
It's also more prosperous. When young 'underprivileged' rioters are filming their exploits on smart-phones, yet still pleading poverty, you know something's not quite right. I still remember when we got our first VHS player. It was an event.
Couldn't afford any tapes, mind.
Consumer electronics is one of the few things that rapidly deflates in price. Try buying a house?
Regardless of what his own personal and private thoughts may be, the fact that he can treat someone who may be considered at one point a mortal enemy with a class and decency beyond many others is quite telling.
So you're impressed by the fact that a politician can act like a politician?
Wyrmalla wrote: He's saying that she was so *evil that as long as people continue thinking about her she'll continue having power over them. In no way is he implying that he laments her death or thinks its anything but a good thing for his country I don't think. He outlived her, so I guess he'd get the last laugh on the matter, that is if he'd bother to indulge the woman. =P
Presumably NI protestants will be dancing in the streets when he finally meets his long-deserved end. I wonder what you'd make of that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I think British society has undeniably become less equal than it was 50 years ago.
It's also more prosperous. When young 'underprivileged' rioters are filming their exploits on smart-phones, yet still pleading poverty, you know something's not quite right. I still remember when we got our first VHS player. It was an event.
Couldn't afford any tapes, mind.
Consumer electronics is one of the few things that rapidly deflates in price. Try buying a house?
Because they don't rapidly deflate in price? Where've you been?
I do co-own a house, incidentally. My mum owns one too now. She bought her council house. Cheers, Maggie!
Albatross wrote: It's also more prosperous. When young 'underprivileged' rioters are filming their exploits on smart-phones, yet still pleading poverty, you know something's not quite right. I still remember when we got our first VHS player. It was an event.
Couldn't afford any tapes, mind.
Hey, welcome to the ranks of anarcho-capitalist Tea Party types, by the way.
I'm a member of the conservative party (i.e. Thatcher's party) here in the UK. I'm basically the closest thing we have to libertarian here. We're just not nutters like the some of the folks you have over there!
We're more pragmatic.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and if the UK government had wanted McGuinness dead, he would be dead.
He wasn't exactly bin Laden in terms of keeping a low profile.
Living to 87, however, is far, far more than she deserved. A great many people had no chance of making it anywhere near that age as a direct result of her callous disregard for some of the most vulnerable (and expendable) members of our society.
Personally, I'll remember her most strongly for Section 28, and all those who suffered and even died as a result of Thatcher enshrining in law the cessation of advancement in LGBT rights. The same law which set up legal barriers against schools tackling homophobic or transphobic bullying, or even doing anything whatsoever to help vulnerable LGBT kids.
I'll avoid dancing in the street (it's just not classy), but my loathing of her hasn't softened one iota in her passing.
The death of Thatcher is not a cause of celebration.
It isn't as though she was affecting policy.
Not sure what you're saying Dogma, You may be quoting me out of context, I was just trying to say that celebrating the death of an individual is in extremely poor taste. But elaboration would be appreciated
If that came across poorly because of the additional text written you have my apologies. I was trying to make the point that rather than complain about how badly people were treated, it is better to go out and make a difference. Some of the points made by Wyrmalla sounds like it came from Strathclyde Uni Students Union bar on a Saturday night.
Not sure what you're saying Dogma, You may be quoting me out of context, I was just trying to say that celebrating the death of an individual is in extremely poor taste. But elaboration would be appreciated
I was agreeing with you. It is in poor taste to celebrate the passing of a person who is no longer relevant within her field. Had Baroness Thatcher died in the late 80's when she was directing policy the celebration would, while still unseemly, be understandable.
For the Thatcher fans who express contempt for all of us who hated her, you need to understand there are very real reasons why we do. Pompous statements about her supposed international achievements, the Thatcher fan default fall back position matter for naught.
My Granddad served in the home guard, sent two of his sons off to the Falklands to fight for this country, then he and another two of his sons were made redundant by Her Government. When the “profitable“ mine closes in a mining village, you remove the reason the place existed in the first place.
How would you feel if the Government fired you for no good reason, not just you but most of the people you know. Imagine what would happen to were you live if most of workers were made redundant over night. For many thousands of people the Thatcher years were utter s**t, thats why she is hated.
If any one can be arsed to watch heres a documentary on the closure of the pit in my home town. I have a cameo at the end
cpt_fishcakes wrote: For the Thatcher fans who express contempt for all of us who hated her, you need to understand there are very real reasons why we do. Pompous statements about her supposed international achievements, the Thatcher fan default fall back position matter for naught.
My Granddad served in the home guard, sent two of his sons off to the Falklands to fight for this country, then he and another two of his sons were made redundant by Her Government. When the “profitable“ mine closes in a mining village, you remove the reason the place existed in the first place.
How would you feel if the Government fired you for no good reason, not just you but most of the people you know. Imagine what would happen to were you live if most of workers were made redundant over night. For many thousands of people the Thatcher years were utter s**t, thats why she is hated.
If any one can be arsed to watch heres a documentary on the closure of the pit in my home town. I have a cameo at the end
The problem is that it is all BS. The argument of the mines being profitable is nonsense. Some of them were profitable when they were closed, but only show a short term profit. I keep hearing "they made a profit the year they closed". That is not the same as being profitable. Those that were profitable long term stayed open under new owners. If coal miners had been willing to modernise and make changes in an orderly way the transition would have been handled much better but they brought it on themselves. After 15 years of industrial action and militancy they were unwilling to do anything different.
The Thatcher years were gak for many because they felt the government owed them. I keep hearing on TV statements like "she closed the mines because of the 1973 election defeat" and other such BS. Nonsense. Noone has been able to produce any facts to show that the mines that were closed were profitable long term. Whilst the closures may not have been handled very well they had to be done and both sides were at fault, but there is only one side that refuses to realise they did anything wrong...
If it was tell me this, why did noone re-open the mine, like they did with Maltby, Welbeck, Dawn Mill, Harworth (which is due to reopen soon)etc...?
Let us not forget the number of businesses destroyed by the miners in the 70s & 80s with three day weeks and distruction of economy's.
Oh, and I haven't lost my job for "no good reason" but I have come dam close when local government budgets were changed and priorities shifted. I also lived in a mining area for 21 years of my life from 1980 to 2001. I do know what it's like.
What the hell is wrong with people wanting to work? How does removing there jobs and there money, the driving force of whole community’s. How did that benefit the nation?
It is not a stupid statement. The unions felt the government should continue to subsidise mining, car making, ship building, steel making and other heavy industry.
You show it yourself in your own statement. You equate your family members involvement in the home guard and army with your other family members right to work in a mine.
The fact is that the mines, whilst on there own some may have been profitable, overall they were loosing massive amounts of money. The miners felt that this should continue and they should continue to be paid through taxes rather than profit. It is wrong that people think the govenment should continue to pay them to do an unneeded job rather than them do something else. That is thinking the govenment owes them a living.
How dose subisdising dirty outdated industry (not just mining) benefit the nation?
Being very much to the left in politics myself i am not really going to mourn the passing of Thatcher, though i am not going to go out and join in a street party, that to me only damages the lefts cause. If we present ourselves as a 'morale' socialist alternative then really we cannot celebrate anyone's death especially when half the people celebrating are to young to rightly remember her influence.
As for the miners strike, i never really believed the unions were acting entirely in the workers interest if it all, as such i felt something did need to be done. Privatisation not necessarily a bad move but it has been done quite badly, it does not seem entirely in the British nature to embrace competition. What i really object to about the strikes is the way the police were used almost as troops, not to uphold the law or peace but to smash a movement.
Obviously poll tax was a bit of a disaster, but ultimately i think the most damaging thing was her deregulation of the banks and financial industries.
Oh and i think in the end the way she lost power to pretty much an internal struggle has left the conservatives somewhat weaker then before, just like Labour now they seem to relish leadership challenges at the smallest hurdles.
Though i have to say at this point somewhat OT that John Major did do a pretty good job of rescuing the economy and setting it up nicely for Blair.
So my personal opinions of her politics aside i wish her family the best, and most of all hope the funeral goes well without to much of the lunatic fringe from my side of politics turning up.
Incidentally i was glad although she is getting full military honors that it is not a state funeral. She upset to many people for that.
Steve steveson wrote: It is not a stupid statement. The unions felt the government should continue to subsidise mining, car making, ship building, steel making and other heavy industry.
You show it yourself in your own statement. You equate your family members involvement in the home guard and army with your other family members right to work in a mine.
The fact is that the mines, whilst on there own some may have been profitable, overall they were loosing massive amounts of money. The miners felt that this should continue and they should continue to be paid through taxes rather than profit. It is wrong that people think the govenment should continue to pay them to do an unneeded job rather than them do something else. That is thinking the govenment owes them a living.
How dose subisdising dirty outdated industry (not just mining) benefit the nation?
Industry these days is massively more subsidised, it just isn't as overt. Tax credits, corporation tax has seen a constant reduction, the common agricultural policy and other EU subsidies and of course a free workforce in lieu of actually having to pay wages anymore. Except of course any profits made from such ventures goes into private hands. The free market principles of the Conservative party, if actually applied, would see the majority of British businesses close or have to massively restructure and see vastly reduced profits.
My views on Thatcher are that she was an idealist, and although I don't agree with her ideals, I wouldn't want an idealist in charge who I did agree with. To rule a nation of millions you need to seek compromise, placing your ideals ahead of the good of the people is not what governing should be about and will just disenfranchise and alienate vast swaths of the population. She didn't seek the diplomatic option, but instead sought to be seen as overpowering and uncompromising in all things. People praise her for that, but that is not how to build a decent society for everyone, it is the way that tyrants act. Although she would know all about tyrants with the ties to Pinochet, Apartheid and Saddam Hussien.
I didn't celebrate her death, she was just an old woman with dementia whose family weren't around. I will (as others have said) happily celebrate the day her ideology dies, that is the poison that infects our society. It is quite disgusting how easily this government has treated the most vulnerable and got away with it, we are up to 30 suicides directly caused by recent welfare reform and violent attacks on the disabled are higher than ever before.
cpt_fishcakes wrote: For the Thatcher fans who express contempt for all of us who hated her, you need to understand there are very real reasons why we do. Pompous statements about her supposed international achievements, the Thatcher fan default fall back position matter for naught.
My Granddad served in the home guard, sent two of his sons off to the Falklands to fight for this country, then he and another two of his sons were made redundant by Her Government. When the “profitable“ mine closes in a mining village, you remove the reason the place existed in the first place.
How would you feel if the Government fired you for no good reason, not just you but most of the people you know. Imagine what would happen to were you live if most of workers were made redundant over night. For many thousands of people the Thatcher years were utter s**t, thats why she is hated.
If any one can be arsed to watch heres a documentary on the closure of the pit in my home town. I have a cameo at the end
Wait, these puits are coal mines no? You're raging about closing an inefficient coal mine? Have you ever been in a coal mine? The suck level is a 9.8. My grandfather ran away as a teenager to the sea just to escape a life in the coal mines.
Thats like bitching that they closed down the local trash dump becuase people used to pick through it.
The problem was the coal miners funded the local economy with the miners wages who would go on to spend them in the towns and villages. When they lost their jobs all the shops etc in their villages lost a lot of income forcing them to close which meant a lot of mining towns were devastated and this caused poverty
Mr. Sanderson had already attempted suicide back in 2010 and was subsequently sectioned, according to the link you posted. His housing benefit was being cut by £30. Hardly insurmountable.
This one is fairly dodgy, to be honest. The article doesn't state the nature of Mrs. Christian's 'spiralling health problems', but it's a fair assumption that depression was one of them, given the circumstances of her death. If it wasn't murder. Read the article closely.
Would you like links to the other 25? In every single case there is a level of culpability on welfare reform.
Yeah, I'm not sure mentally ill people being 'worried' about attending health-checks to determine ability to work qualifies as 'culpability' on the part of the coalition government insofar as these tragic deaths are concerned. I've been looking for full-time work for nearly six months (finally sorted that, btw), and I've managed not to kill myself. People should be tested to see if they can work before we hand them thousands of pounds in benefits. It's not like we have a blank cheque for everyone. Are you trying to claim that people didn't kill themselves under the old system, which iirc utilised health-checks to determine a claimant's ability to work?
Yeah, I'm not sure mentally ill people being 'worried' about attending health-checks to determine ability to work qualifies as 'culpability' on the part of the coalition government insofar as these tragic deaths are concerned. I've been looking for full-time work for nearly six months (finally sorted that, btw), and I've managed not to kill myself. People should be tested to see if they can work before we hand them thousands of pounds in benefits. It's not like we have a blank cheque for everyone. Are you trying to claim that people didn't kill themselves under the old system, which iirc utilised health-checks to determine a claimant's ability to work?
So your claim is that what? They were vulnerable people threatened with homelessness and destitution but would have probably killed themselves anyway at some point so threatening them with homelessness and destitution was immaterial? One third of the population will suffer from some form of mental illness, but nowhere near that number will commit suicide, you cannot just make some hand waving statement about depression (which of course is a factor) but ignore the immediate issues that person is faced with.
Work Capability Assessments carried out by the private firm Atos are notoriously awful, the BMC say it is unfit for purpose and you have a number of ridiculous cases such as the one where a man in a coma was found fit for work. I have no issue with assessing the capability of a disabled person, I do have a problem with paying by results to find people fit regardless of the human cost.
Yeah, I'm not sure mentally ill people being 'worried' about attending health-checks to determine ability to work qualifies as 'culpability' on the part of the coalition government insofar as these tragic deaths are concerned. I've been looking for full-time work for nearly six months (finally sorted that, btw), and I've managed not to kill myself. People should be tested to see if they can work before we hand them thousands of pounds in benefits. It's not like we have a blank cheque for everyone. Are you trying to claim that people didn't kill themselves under the old system, which iirc utilised health-checks to determine a claimant's ability to work?
So your claim is that what? They were vulnerable people threatened with homelessness and destitution but would have probably killed themselves anyway at some point so threatening them with homelessness and destitution was immaterial?
Um, no. That's not what I said. What I'm saying is that they were, in almost all of the cases you cited, threatened with a health assessment and that their conditions unfortunately led to them being unable to deal with the prospect of that, thanks in no small part to the scaremongering of people such as yourself incidentally. The perception created by by the left in this country is that the government is hell-bent on persecuting vulnerable people and casting them out into the street. That is monstrously unfair, and as you have shown, can have deadly consequences. Every single one of those people could have found some form of work to support themselves. They would not have benefited from sitting 'on the sick'. No-one is trying to take money or housing from them, because it isn't their money or housing to take, it is the State's, to give out as it sees fit. That's the problem with relying on the State - you are dependent on the vagaries of the national finances. When times are tight, belts have to be tightened, which means making sure that everyone who is receiving benefits is genuinely entitled to them, which in the case of Disability Living Allowance or Incapacity Benefit means inability to work or find work due to their physical or mental condition. A person with depression can work, so they should, and should be supported in their endeavours. What is so objectionable about that?
One third of the population will suffer from some form of mental illness, but nowhere near that number will commit suicide, you cannot just make some hand waving statement about depression (which of course is a factor) but ignore the immediate issues that person is faced with.
I'm not actually. I'm doing quite the opposite. It is in fact you who is doing the 'handwaving' ('Oh, it's all the fault of the evil Tories'), ignoring the context within which these incidents were situated. People kill themselves for a variety of reasons. You can't legislate for them all. Iraq war veterans kill themselves sometimes. Is that Tony Blair's fault?
Work Capability Assessments carried out by the private firm Atos are notoriously awful, the BMC say it is unfit for purpose and you have a number of ridiculous cases such as the one where a man in a coma was found fit for work.
It's funny, when people cite exceptional abuses of the welfare system as evidence that it's broken, people such as yourself often say 'oh, that's an outlier, the vast majority of benefit claimants are honest etc.' Just an interesting point.
EDIT: Congrats on job btw.
Spare me your false magnanimity please. I find it to be condescending.
Wait, these puits are coal mines no? You're raging about closing an inefficient coal mine? Have you ever been in a coal mine? The suck level is a 9.8. My grandfather ran away as a teenager to the sea just to escape a life in the coal mines.
Thats like bitching that they closed down the local trash dump becuase people used to pick through it.
Closing it wasnt the problem.
Closing it with NO replacement for the local economy in the area, which means no jobs for the miners WAS the problem. Ending up with a huuuuuuuge amount of guys who could work with no jobs to go to nor any hope of any.
Wait, these puits are coal mines no? You're raging about closing an inefficient coal mine? Have you ever been in a coal mine? The suck level is a 9.8. My grandfather ran away as a teenager to the sea just to escape a life in the coal mines.
Thats like bitching that they closed down the local trash dump becuase people used to pick through it.
Closing it wasnt the problem.
Closing it with NO replacement for the local economy in the area, which means no jobs for the miners WAS the problem. Ending up with a huuuuuuuge amount of guys who could work with no jobs to go to nor any hope of any.
Wait, these puits are coal mines no? You're raging about closing an inefficient coal mine? Have you ever been in a coal mine? The suck level is a 9.8. My grandfather ran away as a teenager to the sea just to escape a life in the coal mines.
Thats like bitching that they closed down the local trash dump becuase people used to pick through it.
Closing it wasnt the problem.
Closing it with NO replacement for the local economy in the area, which means no jobs for the miners WAS the problem. Ending up with a huuuuuuuge amount of guys who could work with no jobs to go to nor any hope of any.
Wait, these puits are coal mines no? You're raging about closing an inefficient coal mine? Have you ever been in a coal mine? The suck level is a 9.8. My grandfather ran away as a teenager to the sea just to escape a life in the coal mines.
Thats like bitching that they closed down the local trash dump becuase people used to pick through it.
Closing it wasnt the problem.
Closing it with NO replacement for the local economy in the area, which means no jobs for the miners WAS the problem. Ending up with a huuuuuuuge amount of guys who could work with no jobs to go to nor any hope of any.
Job training?
Wasn't given. The miners were left on their own.
So... you think it's the government job to provide employment?
Wait, these puits are coal mines no? You're raging about closing an inefficient coal mine? Have you ever been in a coal mine? The suck level is a 9.8. My grandfather ran away as a teenager to the sea just to escape a life in the coal mines.
Thats like bitching that they closed down the local trash dump becuase people used to pick through it.
Closing it wasnt the problem.
Closing it with NO replacement for the local economy in the area, which means no jobs for the miners WAS the problem. Ending up with a huuuuuuuge amount of guys who could work with no jobs to go to nor any hope of any.
Job training?
Wasn't given. The miners were left on their own.
So... you think it's the government job to provide employment?
If they are going to get involved with an industry that is the sole source of income for a town, then yes, they should do something to assist those who will be put into poverty and unemployment.
Yeah, I'm not sure mentally ill people being 'worried' about attending health-checks to determine ability to work qualifies as 'culpability' on the part of the coalition government insofar as these tragic deaths are concerned. I've been looking for full-time work for nearly six months (finally sorted that, btw), and I've managed not to kill myself. People should be tested to see if they can work before we hand them thousands of pounds in benefits. It's not like we have a blank cheque for everyone. Are you trying to claim that people didn't kill themselves under the old system, which iirc utilised health-checks to determine a claimant's ability to work?
So your claim is that what? They were vulnerable people threatened with homelessness and destitution but would have probably killed themselves anyway at some point so threatening them with homelessness and destitution was immaterial?
Um, no. That's not what I said. What I'm saying is that they were, in almost all of the cases you cited, threatened with a health assessment and that their conditions unfortunately led to them being unable to deal with the prospect of that, thanks in no small part to the scaremongering of people such as yourself incidentally. The perception created by by the left in this country is that the government is hell-bent on persecuting vulnerable people and casting them out into the street. That is monstrously unfair, and as you have shown, can have deadly consequences. Every single one of those people could have found some form of work to support themselves. They would not have benefited from sitting 'on the sick'. No-one is trying to take money or housing from them, because it isn't their money or housing to take, it is the State's, to give out as it sees fit. That's the problem with relying on the State - you are dependent on the vagaries of the national finances. When times are tight, belts have to be tightened, which means making sure that everyone who is receiving benefits is genuinely entitled to them, which in the case of Disability Living Allowance or Incapacity Benefit means inability to work or find work due to their physical or mental condition. A person with depression can work, so they should, and should be supported in their endeavours. What is so objectionable about that?
Ah that immortal line of "we are helping people by taking away their means of feeding themselves." It really doesn't wash sorry, we live in a country with a National Insurance scheme, should any of us become disabled we should expect to be looked after, it is the mark of a civilised society that we have a safety net. As I have said I am all for assessment of the disabled, but by professionals who have taken the hippocratic oath to do no harm, not a private company paid by results.
The claim I am culpable for a suicide by being outraged by it is somewhat paradoxical. The "left's" scaremongering isn't what pushed these people over the edge, the letters they got saying their homes and only source of income are being taken away had far more to do with it.
Yes a person with non severe depression can work. But what about the 800 MS sufferers declared fit for work? Or the 5000 with cancer, including 10 malignant brain tumors? Or the thousand odd with schizophrenia? And this is if they are able to find work in this country, which is difficult enough for a healthy person.
And it is their housing and money, it's all of ours. The State exists to serve its people, not the other way around.
One third of the population will suffer from some form of mental illness, but nowhere near that number will commit suicide, you cannot just make some hand waving statement about depression (which of course is a factor) but ignore the immediate issues that person is faced with.
I'm not actually. I'm doing quite the opposite. It is in fact you who is doing the 'handwaving' ('Oh, it's all the fault of the evil Tories'), ignoring the context within which these incidents were situated. People kill themselves for a variety of reasons. You can't legislate for them all. Iraq war veterans kill themselves sometimes. Is that Tony Blair's fault?
In part yes, it is partly Blair's fault. But the reason for that is twofold, firstly we have the war itself, but a far greater crime in my eyes is the lack of support given to soldiers returning to civilian life. As Prime Minister for so long he had ample opportunity to create such a support system.
Work Capability Assessments carried out by the private firm Atos are notoriously awful, the BMC say it is unfit for purpose and you have a number of ridiculous cases such as the one where a man in a coma was found fit for work.
It's funny, when people cite exceptional abuses of the welfare system as evidence that it's broken, people such as yourself often say 'oh, that's an outlier, the vast majority of benefit claimants are honest etc.' Just an interesting point.
Benefit fraud is less than one percent, Atos appeals are at 70% of which 40% are successful. There's a bit of a difference in the numbers there.
EDIT: Congrats on job btw.
Spare me your false magnanimity please. I find it to be condescending.
It was actually genuine, hence why I went back and edited my reply. Disagreeing with you does not mean I wish you ill, but whatever.
Wait, these puits are coal mines no? You're raging about closing an inefficient coal mine? Have you ever been in a coal mine? The suck level is a 9.8. My grandfather ran away as a teenager to the sea just to escape a life in the coal mines.
Thats like bitching that they closed down the local trash dump becuase people used to pick through it.
Closing it wasnt the problem.
Closing it with NO replacement for the local economy in the area, which means no jobs for the miners WAS the problem. Ending up with a huuuuuuuge amount of guys who could work with no jobs to go to nor any hope of any.
Job training?
Wasn't given. The miners were left on their own.
So... you think it's the government job to provide employment?
If they are going to get involved with an industry that is the sole source of income for a town, then yes, they should do something to assist those who will be put into poverty and unemployment.
Wait, these puits are coal mines no? You're raging about closing an inefficient coal mine? Have you ever been in a coal mine? The suck level is a 9.8. My grandfather ran away as a teenager to the sea just to escape a life in the coal mines.
Thats like bitching that they closed down the local trash dump becuase people used to pick through it.
Closing it wasnt the problem.
Closing it with NO replacement for the local economy in the area, which means no jobs for the miners WAS the problem. Ending up with a huuuuuuuge amount of guys who could work with no jobs to go to nor any hope of any.
Job training?
Wasn't given. The miners were left on their own.
So... you think it's the government job to provide employment?
If they are going to get involved with an industry that is the sole source of income for a town, then yes, they should do something to assist those who will be put into poverty and unemployment.
Didn't those workers get some unemployment benefits or job re-training? Or, was it "shut da door, you're on your own"?
Didn't those workers get some unemployment benefits or job re-training? Or, was it "shut da door, you're on your own"?
They would have got unemployment benefits, which probably came to far more than continuing to subsidise the mines would have. It almost makes you think it was an ideological decision rather than an economic one...
Didn't those workers get some unemployment benefits or job re-training? Or, was it "shut da door, you're on your own"?
They would have got unemployment benefits, which probably came to far more than continuing to subsidise the mines would have. It almost makes you think it was an ideological decision rather than an economic one...
Didn't those workers get some unemployment benefits or job re-training? Or, was it "shut da door, you're on your own"?
They would have got unemployment benefits, which probably came to far more than continuing to subsidise the mines would have. It almost makes you think it was an ideological decision rather than an economic one...
I'd doubt that. Currently Jobseekers pays roughly one week's worth of wages on minimum wage (two hundred and twenty quid or so) every month. I doubt that it would have been proportionately higher in the Eighties. The Government was subsidising some of those industries so vastly, they were paying at least three weeks wages per worker.
What would have to be measured would be the economic knockon effect of the closing businesses and whatnot.
But by all means, don't let facts or logic stand in your own of cheap snipes. Most people rarely do.
Didn't those workers get some unemployment benefits or job re-training? Or, was it "shut da door, you're on your own"?
They would have got unemployment benefits, which probably came to far more than continuing to subsidise the mines would have. It almost makes you think it was an ideological decision rather than an economic one...
I'd doubt that. Currently Jobseekers pays roughly one week's worth of wages on minimum wage (two hundred and twenty quid or so) every month. I doubt that it would have been proportionately higher in the Eighties. The Government was subsidising some of those industries so vastly, they were paying at least three weeks wages per worker.
What would have to be measured would be the economic knockon effect of the closing businesses and whatnot.
But by all means, don't let facts or logic stand in your own of cheap snipes. Most people rarely do.
So thirty years of paying JSA to thousands cost less than reforming the industry would have? Energy is of course entirely non profit in Britain these days after all.
Well the state subsidies to the mining industry to keep them open ammounted to approximately 1.4 Billion (in todays prices)
The miners stikes constantly making an unprofitable industry even more unprofitable, some campaigning for up to 30% pay rises
But to blame al the mines closing on thatcher is at best unfair. More coal mines closed under harold wilson than they did under Thatcher. 290 compared to 160, during their repective terms of office.
From debunking the Thatcher myths.
Thatcher went to war with the mining unions. But her adversary’s role is often overlooked. Arthur Scargill was the boss of the National Union of Miners, and what sort of a man was he?
In an extraordinary interview with BBC 5Live in 2000, Scargill reminded us that he was a Stalinist who adamantly supported the USSR, and suggested the Russian gulags - in which millions perished - might not have existed (prompting the listener who’d asked him about it to draw a parallel with David Irving’s holocaust denials). Famously, when asked how much losses a pit could make before being considered for closure, Scargill replied “the loss is without limits”.
On the eve of the strikes in 1984 energy minister Peter Walker put together a deal offering miners another job or a voluntary redundancy package, plus £800m investment in mining. He told Thatcher: “I think this meets every emotional issue the miners have. And it’s expensive, but not as expensive as a coal strike”. Thatcher replied “You know, I agree with you”.
Scargill turned down the offer, vetoed the expected ballot of miners to decide whether to strike, and, called a strike (Scargill later wrote about his decision in the Guardian).
Just a bit I found online.
I simply ask, why should a society allow itself to be committed to a grossly unproductive industries, that were dragging a nation down into poverty. A package was offered and declined by skargill without a ballott.
To blame all the woes on thatcher whilst neglecting him is unfair. Yes she had to enforce regrettably nessacey actions to save a nation, skargill was out for himself.
So thirty years of paying JSA to thousands cost less than reforming the industry would have? Energy is of course entirely non profit in Britain these days after all.
Irrelevant. Don't move the goalposts. You said 'They would have got unemployment benefits, which probably came to far more than continuing to subsidise the mines would have', which was most likely wrong.
The question of whether or not it would cost less to reform the industry or take other action than to pay the JSA is a different issue altogether. If you can't keep your points in order to make a proper counter-argument, don't make those points in the first place.
The cost of subsidising the mining industry at the time was in the region of 1.4 billion ( current equivalent) a year if I recall I will check with a quick google if I get chance.
So thirty years of paying JSA to thousands cost less than reforming the industry would have? Energy is of course entirely non profit in Britain these days after all.
Irrelevant. Don't move the goalposts. You said 'They would have got unemployment benefits, which probably came to far more than continuing to subsidise the mines would have', which was most likely wrong.
The question of whether or not it would cost less to reform the industry or take other action than to pay the JSA is a different issue altogether. If you can't keep your points in order to make a proper counter-argument, don't make those points in the first place.
I said subsidise the mines, not the unions and Scargill. Had we kept the mines open we wouldn't have had millions in fuel poverty today. I am not moving the goalposts by thinking that the mines would have changed in structure, it was obviously needed. But yes, had we stupidly kept things as they were in 79 the costs would outweigh paying JSA to the million miners put out of work, but had we kept the mines and subsidised them to the rate we subsidise private energy companies today, things would be a lot better for everyone. Sorry if I was unclear.
So thirty years of paying JSA to thousands cost less than reforming the industry would have? Energy is of course entirely non profit in Britain these days after all.
Irrelevant. Don't move the goalposts. You said 'They would have got unemployment benefits, which probably came to far more than continuing to subsidise the mines would have', which was most likely wrong.
The question of whether or not it would cost less to reform the industry or take other action than to pay the JSA is a different issue altogether. If you can't keep your points in order to make a proper counter-argument, don't make those points in the first place.
I said subsidise the mines, not the unions and Scargill. Had we kept the mines open we wouldn't have had millions in fuel poverty today. I am not moving the goalposts by thinking that the mines would have changed in structure, it was obviously needed. But yes, had we stupidly kept things as they were in 79 the costs would outweigh paying JSA to the million miners put out of work, but had we kept the mines and subsidised them to the rate we subsidise private energy companies today, things would be a lot better for everyone. Sorry if I was unclear.
Had we continued to subsidise the mines (and other non profitable industries) we would probably would have gutted the economy. British coal cost more to mine than could be bought. But to suggest thatchers government didn't try and revive an ailing industry is also wrong.
Margaret Thatcher’s government inherited a coal industry which had seen productivity collapse by 6 percent in five years. Nevertheless, it made attempts to rescue it. In 1981 a subsidy of £50 million was given to industries which switched from cheap oil to expensive British coal. So decrepit had the industry become that taxpayers were paying people to buy British coal.
The Thatcher government injected a further £200 million into the industry. Companies who had gone abroad to buy coal, such as the Central Electricity Generating Board, were banned from bringing it in and 3 million tonnes of coal piled up at Rotterdam at a cost to the British taxpayer of £30 million per year.
By now the industry was losing £1.2 million per day. Its interest payments amounted to £467 million for the year and the National Coal Board needed a grant of £875 million from the taxpayer.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission found that 75 percent of British pits were losing money. The reason was obvious. By 1984 it cost £44 to mine a metric ton of British coal. America, Australia, and South Africa were selling it on the world market for £32 a metric ton.
Productivity increases had come in at 20 percent below the level set in the 1974 Plan for Coal.
Taxpayers were subsidising the mining industry to the tune of £1.3 billion annually. This figure doesn’t include the vast cost to taxpayer-funded industries such as steel and electricity which were obliged to buy British coal.
But when Arthur Scargill appeared before a Parliamentary committee and was asked at what level of loss it was acceptable to close a pit he answered “As far as I can see, the loss is without limits.”
Falling production, falling employment, falling sales, and increasing subsidy; that was the coal industry Margaret Thatcher inherited.
She did not swoop in and kill perfectly good industries out of spite. Industries like coal and steel were already dead by the time she was elected. Thatcher just switched off the increasingly costly life support which had kept these zombie industries going.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'd also take fracking every day of the week over mining.
Scargill is the scum of the earth, he is everything that was wrong in unions, he begged the soviets for money, he used unions funds to pay for his lodgings in London until 2010.
Vile piece of work. Supports Stalin and communism. Bastard feeds the propaganda of the right every time he opens his mouth. An affront to hard working men and women everywhere.
Frazzled wrote: I thought mines were the antithesis of the green power and global warming? Whats a good lefty to think?
If it's a choice between mining and fracking I'll go with mining.
Fracking is safer... for people and environment than straight out mining.
Seriously!? Methane levels in drinking water 17 times higher than normal, methane being released into the air, highly toxic waste water full of mercury, arsenic and other poisons known to kill vegetation and wildlife and earthquakes? Seems far more dangerous to people and the environment than modern British mining, where deaths are very rare indeed.
Had we continued to subsidise the mines (and other non profitable industries) we would probably would have gutted the economy. British coal cost more to mine than could be bought. But to suggest thatchers government didn't try and revive an ailing industry is also wrong.
None of those things tried made any effort to make the mines themselves profitable.
Frazzled wrote: I thought mines were the antithesis of the green power and global warming? Whats a good lefty to think?
If it's a choice between mining and fracking I'll go with mining.
Fracking is safer... for people and environment than straight out mining.
Seriously!? Methane levels in drinking water 17 times higher than normal, methane being released into the air, highly toxic waste water full of mercury, arsenic and other poisons known to kill vegetation and wildlife and earthquakes? Seems far more dangerous to people and the environment than modern British mining, where deaths are very rare indeed.
Show me someone who's died from fracking. I'll show you ten fold miners who died from lung problems.
I said subsidise the mines, not the unions and Scargill. Had we kept the mines open we wouldn't have had millions in fuel poverty today. I am not moving the goalposts by thinking that the mines would have changed in structure, it was obviously needed. But yes, had we stupidly kept things as they were in 79 the costs would outweigh paying JSA to the million miners put out of work, but had we kept the mines and subsidised them to the rate we subsidise private energy companies today, things would be a lot better for everyone. Sorry if I was unclear.
I'm not entirely certain it would have been enough even then. If you examine the causes of the the mines being unprofitable, a simple restructuring would have solved none of the problems. The problems being firstly that cheap Polish coal imports had slashed the value of the British coal quite considerably and stolen what little business for export that there was; the second that the remaining coal was so deep that at the technology level of the time, it was growing increasingly more expensive to extract.
These problems existed outside of the control of the government or the Unions, and a simple restructuring or other internal action would have done little to change them. You tend to note that only now, with the soaring cost of fuel and far more advanced cheaper technology and equipment, are the mines finally become profitable enough to open again under private enterprise.
Also, apologies if I was a little curt and snappy with my last answer. I'd just had an argument with somebody and vented slightly.
Frazzled wrote: I thought mines were the antithesis of the green power and global warming? Whats a good lefty to think?
If it's a choice between mining and fracking I'll go with mining.
Fracking is safer... for people and environment than straight out mining.
Seriously!? Methane levels in drinking water 17 times higher than normal, methane being released into the air, highly toxic waste water full of mercury, arsenic and other poisons known to kill vegetation and wildlife and earthquakes? Seems far more dangerous to people and the environment than modern British mining, where deaths are very rare indeed.
Show me someone who's died from fracking. I'll show you ten fold miners who died from lung problems.
This may be of interest. Miners are paid in Britain up to 70k a year, around 3 times the national average, and modern British mining is incredibly safe compared to a couple of decades ago, or China today. Miners are paid for the risks they are exposed to, people who have nothing to do with fracking are at risk of it's ill effects.
I said subsidise the mines, not the unions and Scargill. Had we kept the mines open we wouldn't have had millions in fuel poverty today. I am not moving the goalposts by thinking that the mines would have changed in structure, it was obviously needed. But yes, had we stupidly kept things as they were in 79 the costs would outweigh paying JSA to the million miners put out of work, but had we kept the mines and subsidised them to the rate we subsidise private energy companies today, things would be a lot better for everyone. Sorry if I was unclear.
I'm not entirely certain it would have been enough even then. If you examine the causes of the the mines being unprofitable, a simple restructuring would have solved none of the problems. The problems being firstly that cheap Polish coal imports had slashed the value of the British coal quite considerably and stolen what little business for export that there was; the second that the remaining coal was so deep that at the technology level of the time, it was growing increasingly more expensive to extract.
These problems existed outside of the control of the government or the Unions, and a simple restructuring or other internal action would have done little to change them. You tend to note that only now, with the soaring cost of fuel and far more advanced cheaper technology and equipment, are the mines finally become profitable enough to open again under private enterprise.
Those are good points, and I must confess my ignorance when it comes to the 1970s coal industry. Even today very few mines are profitable, although they are operating as independent agents these days which would incur its own costs. I just feel the handling of the mines situation was really badly done and has cost this country billions, the same could be said of selling off the social housing too, with the state now paying through the nose for private rents and B&Bs due to shortage of council housing.
Also, apologies if I was a little curt and snappy with my last answer. I'd just had an argument with somebody and vented slightly.
Those are good points, and I must confess my ignorance when it comes to the 1970s coal industry. Even today very few mines are profitable, although they are operating as independent agents these days which would incur its own costs. I just feel the handling of the mines situation was really badly done and has cost this country billions, the same could be said of selling off the social housing too, with the state now paying through the nose for private rents and B&Bs due to shortage of council housing.
I'm afraid I'm not quite with you again on council housing. Or rather, I feel that the issue wasn't with selling off the council housing exactly.
You see, Thatcher selling off the council housing was a major factor in the housing and property boom throughout the nineties and early twenty first century. It was also contributed towards social mobility, as people rose to being middle class through the possession of property and all that entailed.
No, sale of social housing wasn't the issue. The issue was not building more to replace it, and possibly the entrenchment of and reliance on housing associations. Currently, the Conservative Government is only building 100,000 new homes a year as compared to an estimate of the 300,000 as a minimum requirement for our expanding population. The lack of new social housing means that with what exists being heavily dominated by profit-making housing associations, combined with a massive surge in immigrants over the past decade, there is no longer even nearly enough social housing for our population size.
The result being people living with the parents, house prices continuing to rise, impaired social mobility, and the inability of anyone who isn't a homeless lesbian disabled donkey from Bognor with two kids to get social housing.
Frazzled wrote: I thought mines were the antithesis of the green power and global warming? Whats a good lefty to think?
If it's a choice between mining and fracking I'll go with mining.
Fracking is safer... for people and environment than straight out mining.
Seriously!? Methane levels in drinking water 17 times higher than normal, methane being released into the air, highly toxic waste water full of mercury, arsenic and other poisons known to kill vegetation and wildlife and earthquakes? Seems far more dangerous to people and the environment than modern British mining, where deaths are very rare indeed.
Had we continued to subsidise the mines (and other non profitable industries) we would probably would have gutted the economy. British coal cost more to mine than could be bought. But to suggest thatchers government didn't try and revive an ailing industry is also wrong.
None of those things tried made any effort to make the mines themselves profitable.
Thats the point. Successive governments had been doing everything the could to revitalise the industry.
But while the rest of the world modernised, with miners being replaced by machines and a reducing workforce. No such move here was made by the UK thanks to militant unions resisting change. Ironically its the unions power being broken was what was needed to save the coal industry on the Global market, but by then its no longer financially viable, for the UKs dependence on coal had been slashed, oil, nuclear, and gas had all become more important, and coal fired plants had stopped bneing the majority provider of power in the 60s.
If the reforms had been consistently mande, British coal could quite feasably have been a viable export on the global market still. As it was, due to nationalisation, repeated subsidies and outright resistance to modernisation killed off any realistic viability of this.
So thirty years of paying JSA to thousands cost less than reforming the industry would have? Energy is of course entirely non profit in Britain these days after all.
Irrelevant. Don't move the goalposts. You said 'They would have got unemployment benefits, which probably came to far more than continuing to subsidise the mines would have', which was most likely wrong.
The question of whether or not it would cost less to reform the industry or take other action than to pay the JSA is a different issue altogether. If you can't keep your points in order to make a proper counter-argument, don't make those points in the first place.
The mining industry could not be reformed while the NUM had any power.
Scargill couldnt give a feth about the miners, he wanted to get rid of a Conversative government as he did in 1974. The tools for doing so was large scale industrial action designed to force an elected government out by making destabilising the entire economy.
Thatcher did what she had to do. Scargill did what he wanted to do, and was completely careless about the consequences.
Also in the 12 years of Labour government from 1997 to 2010 they didnt bother to rejuvenate the North in any way either. They don't care, and impoverished northerners are better than wealthy ones as they can always blame Thatcher. What is odd is that workers representation is worse now and in the last decade than in the 80's. Labour uses the TUC its doesn't care about the workers. It is far easier and more prevalent to get rid of workers by constructive dismissal now than when Thatcher was in charge, and that was Blairs doing. Where are workers rioghts now, practically non existant. You see for all their rhetoric Labour only 'cares' about the working class to hoodwink them into voting for them, while spouting off how Tory is the 'nasty party'.
Ah that immortal line of "we are helping people by taking away their means of feeding themselves." It really doesn't wash sorry, we live in a country with a National Insurance scheme, should any of us become disabled we should expect to be looked after, it is the mark of a civilised society that we have a safety net.
Absolutely. But it should be a safety net, not a hammock. Also, I'm pretty sure that disability benefits are not contribution-based, like some forms of Jobseekers Allowance. And it is my belief that benefits should be difficult to obtain, precisely because the State's money is effectively held in trust for people who genuinely need it, or have we already forgotten the numerous cases of people falsely claiming over the past few years?
As I have said I am all for assessment of the disabled, but by professionals who have taken the hippocratic oath to do no harm, not a private company paid by results.
Atos Healthcare wrote:
We do not decide your entitlement
We cannot give you advice or provide an opinion on the outcome of your claim. Our role is to carry out an assessment and provide this to the DWP in the form of a report. The DWP Decision Maker may use other information when considering your entitlement to benefit. We are not usually informed of the outcome of individual decisions and we have no targets related to decisions made.
Moving on...
The claim I am culpable for a suicide by being outraged by it is somewhat paradoxical. The "left's" scaremongering isn't what pushed these people over the edge, the letters they got saying their homes and only source of income are being taken away had far more to do with it.
Actually, if you read the articles you cited closely, it was the fear of the assessments that was claimed as a factor in most of the suicides. In one of the others, the man was having £30 worth of Housing Benefit 'taken away'. Once again, that's not insurmountable.
Yes a person with non severe depression can work. But what about the 800 MS sufferers declared fit for work?
Some people with MS can work. If they can, they should.
Or the 5000 with cancer, including 10 malignant brain tumors? Or the thousand odd with schizophrenia? And this is if they are able to find work in this country, which is difficult enough for a healthy person.
Difficult, but not insurmountable. Incidentally, I know a guy with a brain tumour. He sits on his arse all day smoking pot and watching pirated films, and you're paying him to do it. Now, he's never going to be a helicopter pilot (his condition has resulted in epilepsy), but he could work in an office or something, no question. If he could, he should.
And it is their housing and money, it's all of ours. The State exists to serve its people, not the other way around.
Actually, that's not strictly true. The State is an organ of government, which is elected to represent the will of the people. Those people voted to make the Conservatives the largest party in Parliament by a significant margin, with both the Conservatives and Lib Dems campaigning on a promise to bring the public finances back under control after 13 years of Labour cock-ups. It's not 'ask and the State shall provide', nor should it be.
Benefit fraud is less than one percent, Atos appeals are at 70% of which 40% are successful. There's a bit of a difference in the numbers there.
People don't appeal to Atos, they would appeal to the DWP, and it's no surprise that large numbers of people would feel that they should be allowed to sit on benefits instead of getting out there and trying to compete with ruthless fethers like me. Them's the breaks, though.
Albatross, I'm afraid I'd have to take issue with your positive portrayal of Atos. The company has a history of dodginess and successfully discriminating against people who do genuinely need help, and do play a role in deciding who gets it (regardless of what their website may say). Not a month goes by without Private Eye digging some dirt or another on them it seems. I've also seen issues with them represented in relatively neutral mainstream media (The Times).
Other than that, I do agree more generally with the broader thrust of your argument.
I'm not really portraying them in a positive or negative light, just trying to correct factual inaccuracies. I'm indifferent to them, to be honest with you Ketara. If they suck, they suck, and they'll probably lose the tender.
You are correct in that DLA is not contribution based, but it is also not means tested and is given to those in work, it's not about sitting at home smoking weed, it's about the incurred cost of living with such conditions.
I actually know a bit about Atos assessments having been present at one, the HCP was a nurse. Nurses are not professionals as they swear no oath, DWP decision makers are also not professionals.
You may find these interesting.
Spoiler:
People being scared of being assessed by a company deemed unfit for purpose by the BMA isn't down to the Guardian scaremongering, it's down the vast swathes of evidence the company is unfit for purpose. £30 of housing benefit may not seem a lot but when living on £100 a week it is a hell of a lot, especially when that £100 isn't covering your actual living costs as is.
People don't appeal against these decisions because they want to sit at home with free money, they appeal because they have no other recourse and need that hundred pounds a week to live on.
Anyways, my original point in bringing up welfare reform is that it lacks the compassion I would feel should be given to treating the disabled. That level of callousness seems to have stemmed from Thatcher's time in power and this idea of an undeserving poor is a dangerous fabrication created to justify taking money from those with little to give to those with plenty. Like a zero sum game where one side already has zero, while the other side has a number with lots of zeroes. Of course welfare needs to be reformed but there should be a far lighter touch when treating the most vulnerable.
I do have one question for you though, do you think we could have 100% employment?
You are correct in that DLA is not contribution based, but it is also not means tested and is given to those in work, it's not about sitting at home smoking weed, it's about the incurred cost of living with such conditions.
I actually know a bit about Atos assessments having been present at one, the HCP was a nurse. Nurses are not professionals as they swear no oath, DWP decision makers are also not professionals.
You may find these interesting.
Im sorry. People like me are not Professionals? I think you will find that I am. I attended university, I am regulated by the Nursing and Midwifery council. Any nurse employed by ANY company is still accountable to the Nursing Midwifery Council, to the patient and to themselves. The company/environment we work for is irrelevant we strive,the standards we strive for are regulated. Any issue about a Nurse can be taken through our governing body.
Next time you visit your GP practice nurse or district nurse visits, then dont forget to mention that were not professionals because we dont chime off some sheet of paper.
That aside...
Having people on DLA (like my daughter whos on high rate DLA before anyone questions my motivations), its not unreasonable request for a health check before handing over funds.
Albatross wrote: I'm not really portraying them in a positive or negative light, just trying to correct factual inaccuracies. I'm indifferent to them, to be honest with you Ketara. If they suck, they suck, and they'll probably lose the tender.
I've have accompanied several people to ATOS interviews. They are as bad as anyone says. They put words in peoples mouths so that they can typecast people. They claim not to make the decisions about whether people keep their disabillity benefits, which is true in a sense, but they provide the evidence which informs the decision, which effectivly makes them the decision maker. DWP do not questions their assessments and they are under pressure to find a set percentage of people fit for work regardless of disabillity as exposed in the dispatches program.
You are correct in that DLA is not contribution based, but it is also not means tested and is given to those in work, it's not about sitting at home smoking weed, it's about the incurred cost of living with such conditions.
I actually know a bit about Atos assessments having been present at one, the HCP was a nurse. Nurses are not professionals as they swear no oath, DWP decision makers are also not professionals.
You may find these interesting.
Im sorry. People like me are not Professionals? I think you will find that I am. I attended university, I am regulated by the Nursing and Midwifery council. Any nurse employed by ANY company is still accountable to the Nursing Midwifery Council, to the patient and to themselves. The company/environment we work for is irrelevant we strive,the standards we strive for are regulated. Any issue about a Nurse can be taken through our governing body.
Next time you visit your GP practice nurse or district nurse visits, then dont forget to mention that were not professionals because we dont chime off some sheet of paper.
That aside...
Having people on DLA (like my daughter whos on high rate DLA before anyone questions my motivations), its not unreasonable request for a health check before handing over funds.
A professional takes an oath, it has nothing to do with education level or bits of paper. It's no slight not being a professional by that definition, neither are teachers, scientists or countless other occupations.
I have said I am not adverse to the assessment of disabled people, only that it should not be carried out by a private company paid by results.
Anyways, my original point in bringing up welfare reform is that it lacks the compassion I would feel should be given to treating the disabled.
We're veering miles off-topic now, so I'll try to address the specific issues that pertain to the topic at hand.
So, what would you differently?
That level of callousness seems to have stemmed from Thatcher's time in power and this idea of an undeserving poor is a dangerous fabrication created to justify taking money from those with little to give to those with plenty.
That's a gross over-simplification, and let me tell you: Anyone who tries to tell you that the undeserving poor is a fabrication hasn't lived on a council estate. I did for most of my life. It's fething wild. Most of the politics students who espouse such views wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes on Berwick Hills estate. The 'poor and vulnerable' kids on that estate would have your wallet, your phone, your trainers and would put you in the frigging hospital before you could say 'It's not their fault, there just isn't enough community centres!'. It's improved since I left, due in no small part to people buying up ex-council houses. It's still pretty much a gak-hole, though. It's full of people just sitting on the dole getting pissed and stoned (and worse) every day because they can't be arsed to look for a job. D'you know what we used to call the dole? 'Free money'. Kids literally used to say gak like 'I'm off to the jobcentre to get my free money'. I see it everywhere I go. I see it in Salford, I see it Blackpool when I visit... It's an epidemic up north. It has to stop.
Like a zero sum game where one side already has zero, while the other side has a number with lots of zeroes. Of course welfare needs to be reformed but there should be a far lighter touch when treating the most vulnerable.
But who decides who the most vulnerable are? You can't just use simple quantitative economic data, like Labour did for the last 13 years. You need qualitative data - you need people who are aware of the harsh realities on the ground, who've lived in that millieu and know how it works. Some people are poor, not because they want to be (because most poor people want to be rich, duh), but because of a lack of motivation to better themselves. The problem is, most of them won't ever be rich because they don't want to get rich by working at it, so they just sit on their arses instead of doing low-paid menial work. Young British people see cleaning toilets for minimum wage as beneath them, even though a lot of them would be under-qualified for it. I've done it, because I'm not afraid of a little hard work - I had to support myself through uni somehow, right? But check this out: I was the only natural-born British citizen working for the company on site, and the site was huge. Literally every other member of staff (apart from the regional manager) was an African immigrant. Wait, I tell a lie - there were two women from Jamaica. Lovely people, nothing against them at all, but isn't that an indictment on British youth, on unskilled British people in general? I asked my regional manager about the situation and she told me that I was the first Briton they'd interviewed in absolutely ages. There are loads of cleaning jobs in Manchester. They struggle to fill them.
I do have one question for you though, do you think we could have 100% employment?
Anyways, my original point in bringing up welfare reform is that it lacks the compassion I would feel should be given to treating the disabled.
We're veering miles off-topic now, so I'll try to address the specific issues that pertain to the topic at hand.
How is that OT? There is a massive lack of basic human compassion in the treatment of the disabled currently. Be that institutional, or on the street. Whether that lack of compassion stems from Thatcher is debatable, but the 'greed is good', 'only look out for myself' attitude certainly grew in her time in office.
So, what would you differently?
That question has two answers really, utopically I would introduce a citizens income of 10 grand, paid to all, even when working. Realistically, I would make disability assessments a tribunal with three members, a doctor, a person from the DWP, and someone with expertise in living with a disability. The other welfare savings I care far less about, a reduction of the annual rise to 1% is probably fair when compared to workers, but I would like to see disability welfare as ringfenced as pensions are. By all means have a rigorous assessment procedure, but make it fair and don't make the reduction of spending it's primary motivation.
That's a gross over-simplification,
Of course it is, but in a week of top rate tax deductions and bedroom taxes it's frighteningly accurate.
let me tell you: Anyone who tries to tell you that the undeserving poor is a fabrication hasn't lived on a council estate. I did for most of my life. It's fething wild. Most of the politics students who espouse such views wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes on Berwick Hills estate. The 'poor and vulnerable' kids on that estate would have your wallet, your phone, your trainers and would put you in the frigging hospital before you could say 'It's not their fault, there just isn't enough community centres!'. It's improved since I left, due in no small part to people buying up ex-council houses. It's still pretty much a gak-hole, though. It's full of people just sitting on the dole getting pissed and stoned (and worse) every day because they can't be arsed to look for a job. D'you know what we used to call the dole? 'Free money'. Kids literally used to say gak like 'I'm off to the jobcentre to get my free money'. I see it everywhere I go. I see it in Salford, I see it Blackpool when I visit... It's an epidemic up north. It has to stop.
I've lived in some pretty gakky areas myself, but that doesn't mean I think there are two types of poor, those we help and those we tell you have to help yourself, its a silly idea. You cannot starve someone, make them homeless and then expect them to suddenly engage with society, that simply won't work. So you would need to reduce benefits for everyone, which seems attractive to a lot of people, but there is a human and economic cost to that, and the UK already has one of the lowest benefit rates relative to income in Europe.
But who decides who the most vulnerable are? You can't just use simple quantitative economic data, like Labour did for the last 13 years. You need qualitative data - you need people who are aware of the harsh realities on the ground, who've lived in that millieu and know how it works.
The vulnerable are those who need our help, it is as simple as that, the form that help should come in will vary, the archetypes you mention would be helped far more by different support than just the perpetual continuation of JSA payments, but they demonstrably need some form of support to become productive members of society. I concur wholeheartedly on the need for advice to come from those with experience, but policy now certainly isn't, how many in the Cabinet and all their special advisers grew up on a council estate? And when those with real experience offer help, such as with the impact of the welfare reform bill would have on the disabled as offered by the Sparticus report, it is ignored.
Some people are poor, not because they want to be (because most poor people want to be rich, duh), but because of a lack of motivation to better themselves. The problem is, most of them won't ever be rich because they don't want to get rich by working at it, so they just sit on their arses instead of doing low-paid menial work. Young British people see cleaning toilets for minimum wage as beneath them, even though a lot of them would be under-qualified for it. I've done it, because I'm not afraid of a little hard work - I had to support myself through uni somehow, right? But check this out: I was the only natural-born British citizen working for the company on site, and the site was huge. Literally every other member of staff (apart from the regional manager) was an African immigrant. Wait, I tell a lie - there were two women from Jamaica. Lovely people, nothing against them at all, but isn't that an indictment on British youth, on unskilled British people in general? I asked my regional manager about the situation and she told me that I was the first Briton they'd interviewed in absolutely ages. There are loads of cleaning jobs in Manchester. They struggle to fill them.
You are working on the assumption that someone's lot in life is entirely their own fault. Social mobility is not obtained through motivation alone. I actually agree with you about some people feeling above certain jobs, it's idiotic, and it does need to be addressed, but low paid menial work won't raise someone to a different social strata, and certainly won't get them off the welfare bill, housing benefit and tax credits will still need to be paid.
What would you do differently? What would be your way of dealing with the "scroungers"?
I do have one question for you though, do you think we could have 100% employment?
I'm not sure that's desirable for its own sake.
I'm more intersting in your opinion on it's possibility than it's desirability.
Anyways, my original point in bringing up welfare reform is that it lacks the compassion I would feel should be given to treating the disabled.
We're veering miles off-topic now, so I'll try to address the specific issues that pertain to the topic at hand.
How is that OT? There is a massive lack of basic human compassion in the treatment of the disabled currently. Be that institutional, or on the street. Whether that lack of compassion stems from Thatcher is debatable, but the 'greed is good', 'only look out for myself' attitude certainly grew in her time in office.
Or it was already there, waiting to be unleashed. Britain is historically an aspirational nation, and Thatcher (correctly, in my view) saw that he nation as a whole would benefit enormously from removing the barriers to individual enterprise and responsibility. Plus, the idea that she victimised the poor is nonsense. Welfare spending increased in almost every year of her time in office, possible only because of the economic growth her policies were responsible for.
So, what would you differently?
That question has two answers really, utopically I would introduce a citizens income of 10 grand, paid to all, even when working.
That is underpants-on-head crazy. You'd spend 365bn on that? Leaving aside the monstrous expense, you'd be giving people who are already earning enough money cash that they don't need (which you're against, remember?), but the daftest part is that you still wouldn't be helping the poor and disabled. You'd still have to give people money to buy modified vehicles or to modify their houses, physical therapy and care. £10K a year is just about hovering around minimum wage, and for London it would be unthinkable - you'd still have to pay out Housing Benefit. Plus, huge swathes of the population would simply stop looking for work. THEN, you've still got to pay for the NHS. Before you know it you've blown a third of our national budget for literally no good reason.
What savage cuts are you planning to make in order to pay for this lunacy? Welfare is, what? Around £90bn? How are you finding the other £275bn?
Realistically, I would make disability assessments a tribunal with three members, a doctor, a person from the DWP, and someone with expertise in living with a disability.
So throw more money at the problem and hope it goes away?
The other welfare savings I care far less about, a reduction of the annual rise to 1% is probably fair when compared to workers, but I would like to see disability welfare as ringfenced as pensions are. By all means have a rigorous assessment procedure, but make it fair and don't make the reduction of spending it's primary motivation.
Reduction of spending is a massive motivation. We can't afford to pay out as much as we do now because we need to make urgent savings. If we don't do that we'll be storing up huge problems for future generations, and someone will have to deal with it eventually, except the situation will be even more dire. Have you not been watching the news for the last... I dunno, 4 years?
That's a gross over-simplification,
Of course it is, but in a week of top rate tax deductions and bedroom taxes it's frighteningly accurate.
The 50% top rate was in place for less than 2 months. It was a landmine left for the Tories. That much is blindingly obvious. And have you forgotten the fact that the Coalition have raised the lower threshold at which you pay tax?
let me tell you: Anyone who tries to tell you that the undeserving poor is a fabrication hasn't lived on a council estate. I did for most of my life. It's fething wild. Most of the politics students who espouse such views wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes on Berwick Hills estate. The 'poor and vulnerable' kids on that estate would have your wallet, your phone, your trainers and would put you in the frigging hospital before you could say 'It's not their fault, there just isn't enough community centres!'. It's improved since I left, due in no small part to people buying up ex-council houses. It's still pretty much a gak-hole, though. It's full of people just sitting on the dole getting pissed and stoned (and worse) every day because they can't be arsed to look for a job. D'you know what we used to call the dole? 'Free money'. Kids literally used to say gak like 'I'm off to the jobcentre to get my free money'. I see it everywhere I go. I see it in Salford, I see it Blackpool when I visit... It's an epidemic up north. It has to stop.
I've lived in some pretty gakky areas myself, but that doesn't mean I think there are two types of poor, those we help and those we tell you have to help yourself, its a silly idea.
It's not a silly idea at all. Some people don't deserve welfare. It's a fact.
You are working on the assumption that someone's lot in life is entirely their own fault. Social mobility is not obtained through motivation alone.
Oh, here we go, that old 'economic determinism' chesnut. Are you aware of how insulting that is to someone from my background? It is always possible to transcend one's economic background in a free and democratic nation, to say anything else is the grossest paternalism. Hard work wins out in the end.
What would you do differently? What would be your way of dealing with the "scroungers"?
I'd make them earn their benefits, though not quite in the way that the current government is doing. I'd make them volunteer an equivalent number of hours in minimum wage to the amount they receive. If you want to take, you must give back to society in some other way. No-one, not even disabled people (unless they are utterly incapacitated) should be allowed to receive money for nothing. Or chicks for free.
Instead of expanding the TA, I'd bring back national service between 16 and 18 for all young people not in education or training. We don't need a huge standing army, but I would see a full-time, short-term length of service for young people as a happy medium between having large numbers of full-time serving soldiers on long contracts, and part-time weekend warriors. The inevitable reduction in youth crime and anti-social behaviour would go some way towards paying for it, too.
I do have one question for you though, do you think we could have 100% employment?
I'm not sure that's desirable for its own sake.
I'm more intersting in your opinion on it's possibility than it's desirability.
That question has two answers really, utopically I would introduce a citizens income of 10 grand, paid to all, even when working.
That is underpants-on-head crazy. You'd spend 365bn on that? Leaving aside the monstrous expense, you'd be giving people who are already earning enough money cash that they don't need (which you're against, remember?), but the daftest part is that you still wouldn't be helping the poor and disabled. You'd still have to give people money to buy modified vehicles or to modify their houses, physical therapy and care. £10K a year is just about hovering around minimum wage, and for London it would be unthinkable - you'd still have to pay out Housing Benefit. Plus, huge swathes of the population would simply stop looking for work. THEN, you've still got to pay for the NHS. Before you know it you've blown a third of our national budget for literally no good reason.
What savage cuts are you planning to make in order to pay for this lunacy? Welfare is, what? Around £90bn? How are you finding the other £275bn?
I take it you missed the use of the word "utopically," then, or chose to ignore it? He knows it's unrealistic at very best, hence why he pointed out that this would only happen in a utopia.
Albatross wrote: I'm not really portraying them in a positive or negative light, just trying to correct factual inaccuracies. I'm indifferent to them, to be honest with you Ketara. If they suck, they suck, and they'll probably lose the tender.
I've have accompanied several people to ATOS interviews. They are as bad as anyone says. They put words in peoples mouths so that they can typecast people. They claim not to make the decisions about whether people keep their disabillity benefits, which is true in a sense, but they provide the evidence which informs the decision, which effectivly makes them the decision maker. DWP do not questions their assessments and they are under pressure to find a set percentage of people fit for work regardless of disabillity as exposed in the dispatches program.
My mother works in the care system and that's been here assessment of ATOS's handling of those interviews. Its about numbers on a spreadsheet, not humans. I'm surprised that a company that can say a paralyzed person can work (they can still speak, so stick them in a call center and strip all their benefits) is still handling the situation, but then again its the Tories and they're all for just tallying statistics. As I've already stated, the conservatives don't give a damn for the unemployed. Look at their current policies concerning benefits. They're apparently being stripped as an incentive to get people out working. Oh that sounds great. Are you going to be making a job for all the people who you're leaving penniless. No? Then again, how many of them actually came from amongst the plebs or didn't get pally with their other politicians in rich English universities? =P
Albatross wrote: I'm not really portraying them in a positive or negative light, just trying to correct factual inaccuracies. I'm indifferent to them, to be honest with you Ketara. If they suck, they suck, and they'll probably lose the tender.
I've have accompanied several people to ATOS interviews. They are as bad as anyone says. They put words in peoples mouths so that they can typecast people. They claim not to make the decisions about whether people keep their disabillity benefits, which is true in a sense, but they provide the evidence which informs the decision, which effectivly makes them the decision maker. DWP do not questions their assessments and they are under pressure to find a set percentage of people fit for work regardless of disabillity as exposed in the dispatches program.
My mother works in the care system and that's been here assessment of ATOS's handling of those interviews. Its about numbers on a spreadsheet, not humans. I'm surprised that a company that can say a paralyzed person can work (they can still speak, so stick them in a call center and strip all their benefits) is still handling the situation, but then again its the Tories and they're all for just tallying statistics. As I've already stated, the conservatives don't give a damn for the unemployed. Look at their current policies concerning benefits. They're apparently being stripped as an incentive to get people out working. Oh that sounds great. Are you going to be making a job for all the people who you're leaving penniless. No? Then again, how many of them actually came from amongst the plebs or didn't get pally with their other politicians in rich English universities? =P
Being paralysed does not preclude one from working. My dad is a paraplegic and worked for 30 years as a draughtsman. That is the whole point of this testing procedure - to ascertain exactly what someone can do, not what they can't do which has been the traditional default approach.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I should also add that I have first hand experience with this benefits situation - both my parents are disabled, my mum severely so. She would be the first to admit that the benefits she gets are extremely generous; to the extent where she certainly isn't short of a few bob, put it that way. Obviously, it is pretty crappy compensation for being basically unable to do the simplest of tasks, like feed oneself but still, the benefits can be and are good and handing them out without a rigorous means of testing and continuous assessment is simply foolhardy, even more so in an environment where every penny is trying to be saved.
Someone who's paralyzed from the neck down shouldn't have all their benefits stripped from them and told that they should be out there working. I can admit that yes, if you have a mouth you can probably hold a conservation, but I doubt it would be a comfortable experience to be doing that in a work environment all day.
Ok, we'll go for another case. The job center says that a person is unemployable due to their mental state. ATOS says that they are, because the person is physically fit (which is typically the defining factor). Is it ethical to say that people with the mental state of children or the like should be out working? I'm foreseeing that the government's going to be making a loss over this whole benefits thing in the long run just from the number of court cases they'll have to wade through.
I'm biased on this matter of course. My mother works with the people that ATOS is doing its best to rid of their only form of income. My father was told by them that he was fit to work, when he's been refused a job for the past twenty years due to his mental condition. Though he at least hasn't has his benefits stripped as of yet due to calling them on their nonsense repeatedly.
Wyrmalla wrote: Someone who's paralyzed from the neck down shouldn't have all their benefits stripped from them and told that they should be out there working. I can admit that yes, if you have a mouth you can probably hold a conservation, but I doubt it would be a comfortable experience to be doing that in a work environment all day.
Ok, we'll go for another case. The job center says that a person is unemployable due to their mental state. ATOS says that they are, because the person is physically fit (which is typically the defining factor). Is it ethical to say that people with the mental state of children or the like should be out working? I'm foreseeing that the government's going to be making a loss over this whole benefits thing in the long run just from the number of court cases they'll have to wade through.
I'm biased on this matter of course. My mother works with the people that ATOS is doing its best to rid of their only form of income. My father was told by them that he was fit to work, when he's been refused a job for the past twenty years due to his mental condition. Though he at least hasn't has his benefits stripped as of yet due to calling them on their nonsense repeatedly.
People with mental and physical disabilities can and do work for a living either as a replacement or as a supplement to benefits. There are several programs that I know of off the top of my head around this area that employ disabled to do lots of things from making garden furniture to packing automotive supplies. In fact, my mother used to go to such a place until it was closed by the last Labour government
The point of 10k a year is that it isn't quite enough to live comfortably on, so working would be advisable. Also when an experiment was carried out in canada to determine if it provided a disincentive to work, it was found that the only groups with significant reduction of work were new mothers and young people. There were also massive reductions in domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse, and road accidents. A similar scheme is being trialled currently in Namibia too. But, as I said, utopian, it's not going to happen for decades at the very least.
you'd be giving people who are already earning enough money cash that they don't need (which you're against, remember?)
I don't have any issue with people being rich, my issue is with people being poor, by all means earn hundreds of grand a year, but when someone else is deciding between eating or turning the radiator on there's something very wrong. There is no scarcity of money or resources in this country, it's just hoarded in too few hands, and that is immoral.
So throw more money at the problem and hope it goes away?
The current system is incredibly expensive, you pay a private contractor £500m and then still get lumbered with having to use tribunals for the 70% of people who appeal, it's hardly throwing more money at a problem to cut out £500m.
Reduction of spending is a massive motivation. We can't afford to pay out as much as we do now because we need to make urgent savings. If we don't do that we'll be storing up huge problems for future generations, and someone will have to deal with it eventually, except the situation will be even more dire. Have you not been watching the news for the last... I dunno, 4 years?
Reduction of spending doesn't seem such a motivation when it comes to pensions though does it? Pensions came to £74.2bn last year, while DLA came to £12.6bn. I simply asked that the lower number be ringfenced like the one 6 times larger. Bear in mind Osbourne wants to cut 18bn from welfare (a figure he will never achieve as spending is increasing and will continue to), which won't even cover half our annual interest payments on the debt.
It's not a silly idea at all. Some people don't deserve welfare. It's a fact.
So they starve on the streets or turn to crime, how does that help society?
Oh, here we go, that old 'economic determinism' chesnut. Are you aware of how insulting that is to someone from my background? It is always possible to transcend one's economic background in a free and democratic nation, to say anything else is the grossest paternalism. Hard work wins out in the end.
Really? Do you actually think you have more than an astronomically small chance to earn the sort of money that is handed out the children of the upper classes the moment they leave uni?
I'd make them earn their benefits, though not quite in the way that the current government is doing. I'd make them volunteer an equivalent number of hours in minimum wage to the amount they receive. If you want to take, you must give back to society in some other way. No-one, not even disabled people (unless they are utterly incapacitated) should be allowed to receive money for nothing. Or chicks for free.
Which reduces the amount of work available for anyone looking for a paid job, as can be seen currently.
Instead of expanding the TA, I'd bring back national service between 16 and 18 for all young people not in education or training. We don't need a huge standing army, but I would see a full-time, short-term length of service for young people as a happy medium between having large numbers of full-time serving soldiers on long contracts, and part-time weekend warriors. The inevitable reduction in youth crime and anti-social behaviour would go some way towards paying for it, too.
That makes some sense, I would like to see some level of choice though, perhaps extend it to include the police and other public services.
It depends what is meant by '100% employment'.
That everyone who can work, does. My point is that not that many jobs actually exist, and while population is growing the amount of available jobs isn't.
Wyrmalla wrote: Someone who's paralyzed from the neck down shouldn't have all their benefits stripped from them and told that they should be out there working. I can admit that yes, if you have a mouth you can probably hold a conservation, but I doubt it would be a comfortable experience to be doing that in a work environment all day.
Ok, we'll go for another case. The job center says that a person is unemployable due to their mental state. ATOS says that they are, because the person is physically fit (which is typically the defining factor). Is it ethical to say that people with the mental state of children or the like should be out working? I'm foreseeing that the government's going to be making a loss over this whole benefits thing in the long run just from the number of court cases they'll have to wade through.
I'm biased on this matter of course. My mother works with the people that ATOS is doing its best to rid of their only form of income. My father was told by them that he was fit to work, when he's been refused a job for the past twenty years due to his mental condition. Though he at least hasn't has his benefits stripped as of yet due to calling them on their nonsense repeatedly.
People with mental and physical disabilities can and do work for a living either as a replacement or as a supplement to benefits. There are several programs that I know of off the top of my head around this area that employ disabled to do lots of things from making garden furniture to packing automotive supplies. In fact, my mother used to go to such a place until it was closed by the last Labour government
I'm not saying that people can't work, I'm arguing that its unethical to have people who won't find it comfortable to work the same hours as the rest of us so as to make a living. Under ATOS if they find that you "can" work they remove your benefits and treat you as any other worker. So a person that's not fully capable of working/ someone who's in a low paid job geared towards the impaired will be in a deficit under these legislations. There's only a finite number of jobs that people with certain disabilities can do. ATOS is under the illusion that these are unlimited, and well payed. Instead these people wind up unemployed and thus increase the number of people claiming unemployment benefits.
Oh hey look what the newest policy the government's installed is. There's too many unemployed people in the country, let's cut their benefits so they can go out and work in non existent jobs... Yeah, the people'll love that (or at least the ones unaffected by our negative policies).
I take it you missed the use of the word "utopically," then, or chose to ignore it? He knows it's unrealistic at very best, hence why he pointed out that this would only happen in a utopia.
'Utopian' doesn't mean 'immune from repudiation'. If we're wishing for 'ice-cream and rainbows'-type fantasy scenarios, why not give everyone £100k?
Never have I witnessed a gap between the mainstream media and the public quite like the last twenty-four hours since the death of Margaret Thatcher. While both the press and President Obama were uttering tearful remembrances, thousands took to the streets of the UK and beyond to celebrate. Immediately this drew strong condemnation of what were called "death parties," described as “tasteless”, “horrible” and “beneath all human decency.” Yet if the same media praising Thatcher and appalled by the popular response would bother to ask one of the people celebrating, they might get a story that doesn't fit into their narrative, which is probably why they aren't asking at all.
I received a note this morning from a friend of a friend. She lives in the UK, although her family didn't arrive there by choice. They had to flee Chile, like thousands of others, when it was under the thumb of General Augusto Pinochet. If you don't know the details about Pinochet's blood-soaked two-decade reign, you should read about them but take care not to eat beforehand. He was a merciless overseer of torture, rapes and thousands of political executions. He had the hands and wrists of the country's greatest folk singer Victor Jara broken in front of a crowd of prisoners before killing him. He had democratically elected Socialist President Salvador Allende shot dead at his desk. His specialty was torturing people in front of their families.
As Naomi Klein has written so expertly, he then used this period of shock and slaughter to install a nationwide laboratory for neoliberal economics. If Pincohet's friend Milton Friedman had a theory about cutting food subsidies, privatizing social security, slashing wages or outlawing unions, Pinochet would apply it. The results of these experiments became political ammunition for neoliberal economists throughout the world. Seeing Chile-applied economic theory in textbooks always boggles my mind. It would be like if the American Medical Association published a textbook on the results of Dr. Josef Mengele's work in the concentration camps, without any moral judgment about how he accrued his patients.
Pinochet was the General in charge of this human rights catastrophe. He also was someone who Margaret Thatcher called a friend. She stood by the General even when he was in exile, attempting to escape justice for his crimes. As she said to Pinochet, "[Thank you] for bringing democracy to Chile."
Therefore, if I want to know why someone would celebrate the death of Baroness Thatcher, I think asking a Chilean in exile would be a great place to start. My friend of a friend took to the streets of the UK when she heard that the Iron Lady had left her mortal coil. Here is why:
I'm telling [my daughter] all about the Thatcher legacy through her mother's experience, not the media's; especially how the Thatcher government directly supported Pinochet's murderous regime, financially, via military support, even military training (which we know now, took place in Dundee University). Thousands of my people (and members of my family) were tortured and murdered under Pinochet's regime—the fascist beast who was one of Thatcher's closest allies and friend. So all you apologists/those offended [by my celebration]—you can take your moral high ground & shove it. YOU are the ones who don't understand. Those of us celebrating are the ones who suffered deeply under her dictatorship and WE are the ones who cared. We are the ones who protested. We are the humanitarians who bothered to lift a finger to help all those who suffered under her regime. I am lifting a glass of champagne to mourn, to remember and to honour all the victims of her brutal regime, here AND abroad. And to all those heroes who gave a gak enough to try to do something about it.
I should add here that I lived in Chile in 1995, when Pinochet had been deposed but was still in charge of the armed forces. I became friends with those who were tortured or had their families disappeared, so Thatcher's connection to Chile strikes a personal note with me. I also understand, however, that similar explanations for "why people are celebrating" could be made by those with connections to Argentina, apartheid South Africa, Indonesia, Belfast, Gaza or Baghdad. The case could also be made by those in the UK affected by Thatcher's Pinochet-tested economic dictates who choose not to mourn.
It also matters because the forty-eight hours after a powerful public figure dies is when the halo becomes permanently affixed to their head. When Ronald Reagan passed away, a massive right wing machine went into motion aimed at removing him from all criticism. The Democrats certainly didn't challenge this interpretation of history and now according to polls, people under 25 would elect Reagan over President Obama, even though Reagan's ideas remain deeply unpopular. To put it crudely, the political battle over someone's memory is a political battle over policy. In Thatcher's case, if we gloss over her history of supporting tyrants, we are doomed to repeat them.
As Glenn Greenwald wrote in The Guardian,
There is absolutely nothing wrong with loathing Margaret Thatcher or any other person with political influence and power based upon perceived bad acts, and that doesn't change simply because they die. If anything, it becomes more compelling to commemorate those bad acts upon death as the only antidote against a society erecting a false and jingoistically self-serving history.
Or to put it even more simply, in the words, of David Wearing, "People praising Thatcher's legacy should show some respect for her victims." That would be nice, wouldn't it? Let's please show some respect for Margaret Thatcher's victims. Let's respect those who mourn everyday because of her policies, but choose this one day to wipe away the tears. Then let's organize to make sure that the history she authored does not repeat.
I take it you missed the use of the word "utopically," then, or chose to ignore it? He knows it's unrealistic at very best, hence why he pointed out that this would only happen in a utopia.
'Utopian' doesn't mean 'immune from repudiation'. If we're wishing for 'ice-cream and rainbows'-type fantasy scenarios, why not give everyone £100k?
On the contrary, when someone says "in an ideal world," you don't immediately lay into whatever they say next. It's a fantasy, idle, and obviously meant as a non-serious point.
It just seems like wasted energy to lay into the point with any real robustness, especially when it's obviously not meant as an actual rebuttal.
The point of 10k a year is that it isn't quite enough to live comfortably on, so working would be advisable. Also when an experiment was carried out in canada to determine if it provided a disincentive to work, it was found that the only groups with significant reduction of work were new mothers and young people.
That's not exactly comforting.
There were also massive reductions in domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse, and road accidents. A similar scheme is being trialled currently in Namibia too. But, as I said, utopian, it's not going to happen for decades at the very least.
I hope it never happens at all, to be honest. In fact, I'd take up arms to stop it.
you'd be giving people who are already earning enough money cash that they don't need (which you're against, remember?)
I don't have any issue with people being rich, my issue is with people being poor, by all means earn hundreds of grand a year, but when someone else is deciding between eating or turning the radiator on there's something very wrong. There is no scarcity of money or resources in this country, it's just hoarded in too few hands, and that is immoral.
See, I find it immoral to take money away from people who have honestly traded their labour at a value set by the market, not by themselves, and to give it to people who haven't earned it by the same methods and call it 'moral', especially when the motivation for doing so seems largely punitive, despite the declarations of compassion one hears from the Left. The Left in the UK is fairly transparently motivated by hatred and envy of the wealthy, much more so than compassion for the poor. It's like Mrs. T said, the left wing don't care if the poor get more poor as long as the rich get less rich and the gap narrows.
So throw more money at the problem and hope it goes away?
The current system is incredibly expensive, you pay a private contractor £500m and then still get lumbered with having to use tribunals for the 70% of people who appeal, it's hardly throwing more money at a problem to cut out £500m.
£500m is far from incredibly expensive, especially when you consider the billions frittered away by Labour on the failed NHS IT system.
Reduction of spending is a massive motivation. We can't afford to pay out as much as we do now because we need to make urgent savings. If we don't do that we'll be storing up huge problems for future generations, and someone will have to deal with it eventually, except the situation will be even more dire. Have you not been watching the news for the last... I dunno, 4 years?
Reduction of spending doesn't seem such a motivation when it comes to pensions though does it? Pensions came to £74.2bn last year, while DLA came to £12.6bn.
Apples and oranges.
It's not a silly idea at all. Some people don't deserve welfare. It's a fact.
So they starve on the streets or turn to crime, how does that help society?
There's a third option.
Oh, here we go, that old 'economic determinism' chesnut. Are you aware of how insulting that is to someone from my background? It is always possible to transcend one's economic background in a free and democratic nation, to say anything else is the grossest paternalism. Hard work wins out in the end.
Really? Do you actually think you have more than an astronomically small chance to earn the sort of money that is handed out the children of the upper classes the moment they leave uni?
Right, I've tried to keep this polite, but you're talking absolute gak now. I genuinely don't know where to start with that statement. It's utter drivel. Do upper-class children enjoy greater advantages than poorer kids? Yes, of course. But those advantages aren't purely economic, and the idea that they are 'handed' huge salaries as soon as they leave university is nonsense. People from poorer backgrounds CAN succeed, just because it's more difficult doesn't mean they shouldn't try. I personally know a guy who works in pharmaceuticals who earns a six-figure salary, and he's from a similar background to me. I know solicitors, a stock-broker and PhDs, all of whom come from the same area, and who had the same disadvantages I did. Hell, I've just got a job in banking, and my family lived in one freezing cold room for about a year when we first came back to England from NI.
I'd make them earn their benefits, though not quite in the way that the current government is doing. I'd make them volunteer an equivalent number of hours in minimum wage to the amount they receive. If you want to take, you must give back to society in some other way. No-one, not even disabled people (unless they are utterly incapacitated) should be allowed to receive money for nothing. Or chicks for free.
Which reduces the amount of work available for anyone looking for a paid job, as can be seen currently.
Nope. I'd make them work in the voluntary sector.
Instead of expanding the TA, I'd bring back national service between 16 and 18 for all young people not in education or training. We don't need a huge standing army, but I would see a full-time, short-term length of service for young people as a happy medium between having large numbers of full-time serving soldiers on long contracts, and part-time weekend warriors. The inevitable reduction in youth crime and anti-social behaviour would go some way towards paying for it, too.
That makes some sense, I would like to see some level of choice though, perhaps extend it to include the police and other public services.
Agreed, although the police and fire service are massively over-subscribed, due in no small part to unions preventing those services getting rid of useless people squatting on jobs-for-life.
It depends what is meant by '100% employment'.
That everyone who can work, does.
I'm in favour of a flexible labour market, but yeah, why wouldn't anyone want everyone who is able to work, to do so?
I take it you missed the use of the word "utopically," then, or chose to ignore it? He knows it's unrealistic at very best, hence why he pointed out that this would only happen in a utopia.
'Utopian' doesn't mean 'immune from repudiation'. If we're wishing for 'ice-cream and rainbows'-type fantasy scenarios, why not give everyone £100k?
On the contrary, when someone says "in an ideal world," you don't immediately lay into whatever they say next. It's a fantasy, idle, and obviously meant as a non-serious point.
I take it you missed the use of the word "utopically," then, or chose to ignore it? He knows it's unrealistic at very best, hence why he pointed out that this would only happen in a utopia.
'Utopian' doesn't mean 'immune from repudiation'. If we're wishing for 'ice-cream and rainbows'-type fantasy scenarios, why not give everyone £100k?
Because 100k would destroy any productivity and would never be economically possible. The idea of a guaranteed basic income has been around for centuries, it's not something I just dreamt up. Martin Luther King Jr once wrote "I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective — the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income."
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I found this article interesting.
See, I find it immoral to take money away from people who have honestly traded their labour at a value set by the market, not by themselves, and to give it to people who haven't earned it by the same methods and call it 'moral', especially when the motivation for doing so seems largely punitive, despite the declarations of compassion one hears from the Left. The Left in the UK is fairly transparently motivated by hatred and envy of the wealthy, much more so than compassion for the poor. It's like Mrs. T said, the left wing don't care if the poor get more poor as long as the rich get less rich and the gap narrows.
Well, that's hilariously oversimplified. Honestly, it's like you've decided that the best way to counter generalisations about Conservative politics is to make equally ridiculous statements regarding your supposed political opposites.
For someone who actually writes intelligently about the issues surrounding the divisive Baroness, this kind of thing is surprising.
The Left in Britain, for one thing, is a large and very loosely-connected body of people, certainly not some kind of monolithic organisation. It includes people from all walks of life, and debates on a huge variety of issues, not all of which are focussed on, or even include, the rich you seem to think we all hate with a passion. By definition in a pseudo-capitalist society, there will be different levels of earning depending on a person's position in society; to attempt to replace this with a utopic (used in the correct sense) system similar to that advocated by the Old Left is a dream at best.
On the subject of the rich, actually, whilst trading your labour on the market is hardly worth condemning - especially as that's how the economic system in the UK works - and there are certainly many wealthy people who have indeed legitimately earned their money, you have to question how the mega-rich, those who have stopped labouring at all in any real sense, can justify sitting on more money than they could ever spend, even adding to it with each passing year, when there are people who haven't enough money even with the jobs they hold down.
Perhaps I'm guilty of simplifying things too, but then, perhaps I was tired of seeing my position badly represented by someone who doesn't even share them, and a little irritated by having someone else define what I believed for me.
I take it you missed the use of the word "utopically," then, or chose to ignore it? He knows it's unrealistic at very best, hence why he pointed out that this would only happen in a utopia.
'Utopian' doesn't mean 'immune from repudiation'. If we're wishing for 'ice-cream and rainbows'-type fantasy scenarios, why not give everyone £100k?
On the contrary, when someone says "in an ideal world," you don't immediately lay into whatever they say next. It's a fantasy, idle, and obviously meant as a non-serious point.
I don't understand? Why is it not comforting to know noone will ever go hungry?
There were also massive reductions in domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse, and road accidents. A similar scheme is being trialled currently in Namibia too. But, as I said, utopian, it's not going to happen for decades at the very least.
I hope it never happens at all, to be honest. In fact, I'd take up arms to stop it.
You would take up arms, and I assume kill people, to stop a system which treats everyone equally?
See, I find it immoral to take money away from people who have honestly traded their labour at a value set by the market, not by themselves, and to give it to people who haven't earned it by the same methods and call it 'moral', especially when the motivation for doing so seems largely punitive, despite the declarations of compassion one hears from the Left. The Left in the UK is fairly transparently motivated by hatred and envy of the wealthy, much more so than compassion for the poor. It's like Mrs. T said, the left wing don't care if the poor get more poor as long as the rich get less rich and the gap narrows.
You are reaching now, I expressly said I have no issues with how high the top wages go, only that the lowest reach a liveable level. Don't make the assumption that everyone only cares about themselves, people are capable of empathy. A study found in fact that those people more inclined to hate often sit on the right side of politics, not the left.
Also please don't treat me as some spokesman for the left, I claim to be no such thing and have treated you as an individual. Please extend me the same respect.
So throw more money at the problem and hope it goes away?
The current system is incredibly expensive, you pay a private contractor £500m and then still get lumbered with having to use tribunals for the 70% of people who appeal, it's hardly throwing more money at a problem to cut out £500m.
£500m is far from incredibly expensive, especially when you consider the billions frittered away by Labour on the failed NHS IT system.
So I am throwing money at a problem, until I show otherwise, and then money isn't an issue?
Reduction of spending is a massive motivation. We can't afford to pay out as much as we do now because we need to make urgent savings. If we don't do that we'll be storing up huge problems for future generations, and someone will have to deal with it eventually, except the situation will be even more dire. Have you not been watching the news for the last... I dunno, 4 years?
Reduction of spending doesn't seem such a motivation when it comes to pensions though does it? Pensions came to £74.2bn last year, while DLA came to £12.6bn.
Apples and oranges.
Yes, where the apple costs 6 times the orange, but the orange is the thing we can't afford for the fruit bowl.
It's not a silly idea at all. Some people don't deserve welfare. It's a fact.
So they starve on the streets or turn to crime, how does that help society?
There's a third option.
Which is?
Oh, here we go, that old 'economic determinism' chesnut. Are you aware of how insulting that is to someone from my background? It is always possible to transcend one's economic background in a free and democratic nation, to say anything else is the grossest paternalism. Hard work wins out in the end.
Really? Do you actually think you have more than an astronomically small chance to earn the sort of money that is handed out the children of the upper classes the moment they leave uni?
Right, I've tried to keep this polite, but you're talking absolute gak now. I genuinely don't know where to start with that statement. It's utter drivel. Do upper-class children enjoy greater advantages than poorer kids? Yes, of course. But those advantages aren't purely economic, and the idea that they are 'handed' huge salaries as soon as they leave university is nonsense. People from poorer backgrounds CAN succeed, just because it's more difficult doesn't mean they shouldn't try. I personally know a guy who works in pharmaceuticals who earns a six-figure salary, and he's from a similar background to me. I know solicitors, a stock-broker and PhDs, all of whom come from the same area, and who had the same disadvantages I did. Hell, I've just got a job in banking, and my family lived in one freezing cold room for about a year when we first came back to England from NI.
The OECD have shown that Britain has some of the lowest social mobility in the developed world, and no offence, but I trust their finding more than anecdotal evidence. If we using anecdotes though I know (as I am sure you do too) of many people who have worked their backsides off for years and never even reached the 40% tax bracket. This "master of your own fate" stuff is not helpful or realistic in making social policy.
I'd make them earn their benefits, though not quite in the way that the current government is doing. I'd make them volunteer an equivalent number of hours in minimum wage to the amount they receive. If you want to take, you must give back to society in some other way. No-one, not even disabled people (unless they are utterly incapacitated) should be allowed to receive money for nothing. Or chicks for free.
Which reduces the amount of work available for anyone looking for a paid job, as can be seen currently.
Nope. I'd make them work in the voluntary sector.
The voluntary sector isn't that large, there's what 2 million unemployed currently.
It depends what is meant by '100% employment'.
That everyone who can work, does.
I'm in favour of a flexible labour market, but yeah, why wouldn't anyone want everyone who is able to work, to do so?
I would love such a situation, but it is unrealistic. There aren't 40million jobs in Britain.
I take it you missed the use of the word "utopically," then, or chose to ignore it? He knows it's unrealistic at very best, hence why he pointed out that this would only happen in a utopia.
'Utopian' doesn't mean 'immune from repudiation'. If we're wishing for 'ice-cream and rainbows'-type fantasy scenarios, why not give everyone £100k?
On the contrary, when someone says "in an ideal world," you don't immediately lay into whatever they say next. It's a fantasy, idle, and obviously meant as a non-serious point.
Really? Read his subsequent posts.
Yes, I believe in the system, but I say utopically because I realise it is a system that our country isn't going to be implementing any time soon.
I'd make them earn their benefits, though not quite in the way that the current government is doing. I'd make them volunteer an equivalent number of hours in minimum wage to the amount they receive. If you want to take, you must give back to society in some other way. No-one, not even disabled people (unless they are utterly incapacitated) should be allowed to receive money for nothing. Or chicks for free.
Which reduces the amount of work available for anyone looking for a paid job, as can be seen currently.
Nope. I'd make them work in the voluntary sector.
Sorry, but the "forced work" malarkey is a honking load of shash for a number of reasons. Starting with your voluntary idea...
First off, there are plenty of charities that would tell you where to shove your forced "volunteering". Oxfam, where I volunteer, refuses to accept "volunteers" from work scheme placements, because it's against their ethics. I think my local British Heart Foundation shop might be down with the scheme, but don't take my word for it.
Second, there's not even close to being enough places. Even if the charities were up for it, what would they do with all of these people? I know that having an entire army of 2 million "volunteers" battling to eradicate world hunger and child abuse and whatnot sounds like a pretty stirring image, but these people would all be new recruits. 2 million new recruits. To call it a logistical nightmare wouldn't even come close. The charities would be better off without them and they know it.
---
Now, as we'll have to come crawling back to the private or public sectors, let's just recap the reasons we're all aware of (including you, it seems) regarding why, exactly, it is a honking load of shash.
First off, if there are jobs available to be done, for the love common sense and all that is holy, open them up to the bloody public so we can all apply for them why in the hell would these jobs be ring-fenced like this who the hell would do something so moronic it makes no sense I can't even fathom it gaaaaah.
Second off... Actually that first point is all that is needed. Like, by an order of magnitude. Seriously, anything else I say at this point is just redundant. But... Free workers would have a massively negative impact on the wages, hours and job security of employees that companies actually have to pay.
---
Basically, the problem is thus: there needs to be more jobs. So long as people can prove that they're putting in adequate effort to find work, they should be entitled to benefits. End of story.
Maybe I'm not a vengeance-fuelled, hate-filled monster, but when I hear sensationalist headlines like "feckless scroungers get more than hard-working employees", my initial thought isn't "those fiends! throw them onto the streets!", it's "how in the hell can low-wage employees be getting treated so badly in this day and age?". But, because it's easier to punish than render assistance, nobody ever wants to talk about helping the hard done-by minimum wagers. ...Except to make their lot merely look impressive by making the jobless even worse off, of course. :p
See, I find it immoral to take money away from people who have honestly traded their labour at a value set by the market, not by themselves, and to give it to people who haven't earned it by the same methods and call it 'moral', especially when the motivation for doing so seems largely punitive, despite the declarations of compassion one hears from the Left. The Left in the UK is fairly transparently motivated by hatred and envy of the wealthy, much more so than compassion for the poor. It's like Mrs. T said, the left wing don't care if the poor get more poor as long as the rich get less rich and the gap narrows.
You are reaching now, I expressly said I have no issues with how high the top wages go, only that the lowest reach a liveable level. Don't make the assumption that everyone only cares about themselves, people are capable of empathy. A study found in fact that those people more inclined to hate often sit on the right side of politics, not the left.
Also please don't treat me as some spokesman for the left, I claim to be no such thing and have treated you as an individual. Please extend me the same respect.
Do you have any citation on "A study found in fact that those people more inclined to hate often sit on the right side of politics, not the left"??
That's hella flame bait there dude.
Oh, here we go, that old 'economic determinism' chesnut. Are you aware of how insulting that is to someone from my background? It is always possible to transcend one's economic background in a free and democratic nation, to say anything else is the grossest paternalism. Hard work wins out in the end.
Really? Do you actually think you have more than an astronomically small chance to earn the sort of money that is handed out the children of the upper classes the moment they leave uni?
Right, I've tried to keep this polite, but you're talking absolute gak now. I genuinely don't know where to start with that statement. It's utter drivel. Do upper-class children enjoy greater advantages than poorer kids? Yes, of course. But those advantages aren't purely economic, and the idea that they are 'handed' huge salaries as soon as they leave university is nonsense. People from poorer backgrounds CAN succeed, just because it's more difficult doesn't mean they shouldn't try. I personally know a guy who works in pharmaceuticals who earns a six-figure salary, and he's from a similar background to me. I know solicitors, a stock-broker and PhDs, all of whom come from the same area, and who had the same disadvantages I did. Hell, I've just got a job in banking, and my family lived in one freezing cold room for about a year when we first came back to England from NI.
The OECD have shown that Britain has some of the lowest social mobility in the developed world, and no offence, but I trust their finding more than anecdotal evidence. If we using anecdotes though I know (as I am sure you do too) of many people who have worked their backsides off for years and never even reached the 40% tax bracket. This "master of your own fate" stuff is not helpful or realistic in making social policy.
OECD is one of the more biased institution around... do you have any other source supporting that Britain has the lowest social mobility?
It is a truism that history is written by the victors. As Margaret Thatcher's economic policies were continued after she left office, culminating in economic catastrophe in 2008, it is necessary to throw out the myths peddled about her. The first is that she was popular. The second is that she delivered economic success.
Unlike previous governments, Thatcher's never commanded anything close to a majority in a general election. The Tories' biggest share of the vote under her was less than 44% in 1979, after which her vote fell. The false assertions about her popularity are used to insist that Labour can only succeed by carrying out Tory policies. But this is untrue.
The reason for the parliamentary landslide in 1983 was not Thatcher's popularity – her share of the vote fell to 42% – but the loss of votes to the defectors of the SDP and their alliance with the Liberals. Labour's voters did not defect to the Tories, whose long-term decline continued under Thatcher.
Nor did Thatcher deliver economic success, still less "save our country" in David Cameron's silly and overblown phrase-mongering. In much more difficult circumstances in 1945, the Labour government, despite war debt, set itself the task of economic regeneration, introduced social security and pensions, built hundreds of thousands of homes and created the NHS. In the 31 years before Thatcher came to office the economy grew by about 150%; in the 31 years since, it's grown by little more than 100%.
Thatcher believed that the creation of 3 million unemployed was a price worth paying for a free market in everything except labour. Thatcher's great friend Augusto Pinochet used machine guns to control labour, whereas Thatcher used the less drastic means of anti-union laws. But their goal was the same, to reduce the share of working class income in the economy. The economic results were the reason for Thatcher's falling popularity. As the authors of The Spirit Level point out, the inequality created led to huge social ills, increases in crime, addictions of all kinds and health epidemics including mental health issues.
Thatcher's destruction of industry, combined with financial deregulation and the "big bang", began the decline of saving and accumulation of private- and public-sector debt that led directly to the banking crisis of 2008. The idea that bankers would rationally allocate resources for all our benefit was always a huge lie. Now the overwhelming majority are directly paying the price for this failed experiment through the bailout of bank shareholders.
Thatcher was sustained only by one extraordinary piece of luck. Almost the moment she stepped over the threshold of Downing Street the economy was engulfed in an oil bonanza. During her time in office, government oil receipts amounted to 16% of GDP. But instead of using this windfall to boost investment for longer-term prosperity, it was used for tax cuts. Public investment was slashed. By the end of her time in office the military budget vastly exceeded net public investment.
This slump in investment, and the associated destruction of manufacturing and jobs, is the disastrous economic and social legacy of Thatcherism. Production was replaced by banking. House-building gave way to estate agency. The substitute for decent jobs was welfare. Until there is a break with that legacy there can be no serious rebuilding of Britain's economy.
The current economic crisis is already one year longer than the one Thatcher created in the early 1980s. In effect the policies are the same now, but there is no new oil to come to the rescue.
Labour will win the next election due to the decline in Tory support, which is even lower under Cameron than Thatcher. But Labour must come to office with an economic policy able to rebuild the British economy – which means a clean break with the economic policies of Thatcher. Labour can build an alliance of the overwhelming majority struggling under austerity: a political coalition to redirect resources towards investment and sustainable prosperity using all the available levers of government.
We can succeed by rejecting Thatcherism – the politics and economics of decline and failure.
Ribon Fox wrote: Ordinarily I don't like a single thing that drips from Mr Ken Livingstone's But this time i do agree... dear god what have I become?
He's still being a wee bit hypocritical, though. I mean, even if Thatcher's government started the downfall as he sees it, Labour hardly stepped in and fixed these problems.
Perhaps that's what he's alluding to when he claims Labour need to step away from "Thatcherite" policies.
Ribon Fox wrote: Ordinarily I don't like a single thing that drips from Mr Ken Livingstone's But this time i do agree... dear god what have I become?
He's still being a wee bit hypocritical, though. I mean, even if Thatcher's government started the downfall as he sees it, Labour hardly stepped in and fixed these problems.
Perhaps that's what he's alluding to when he claims Labour need to step away from "Thatcherite" policies.
I think his best point is the comparison between Attlee and Thatcher. Attlee was a quiet man who got gak done, he sorted out the economy and set up the NHS and welfare state, everything was about the country while he took a back seat and acted like a chairman rather than a president.
I don't understand? Why is it not comforting to know noone will ever go hungry?
Until inflation kicks in fr all the extra money that would need to be printed to follow up on this plan.
You would take up arms, and I assume kill people, to stop a system which treats everyone equally?
I wouldnt go so far as to take up arms... But i wouldnt hang around to see the vastly increased taxes on my hard earned pay, or the economic Quagmire that would follow. I work to provide for my family.
People do abuse the system... Iv seen it, im aware of it.... an example hasd even been on tv (on a regular basis), pick a video... probably any video.
Anecdotal I know. But illustrates a mentality out there that exists.
Why should hard working people constantly hand out for those that wont work.
I am also in favor of working for benefits, But not nesaceily for charities, but projects that benefit the community as a whole. Urban Regeneration projects, cleaning parks, fresh paint, cleaning graffitti, cleaning streets after public events like football matches, maintainence of school fields and childrens play areas on weekends.
Id also advocate the benefits system being a minimal cash sum, but should be lkargely in the form of 'vouchers'for food (not alcohol of cigarettes) utililities (gas, electric, water) travel (bus/public transport) basicly the benefits system is used to provide food and essentials for living but cannot be abused with unesssacery luxuries.
I hardly think Jeremy Kyle is a good source for how people decide to use benefits.
I mean, the show is about the worst possible people placed in front of a camera for your entertainment.
I am also in favor of working for benefits, But not nesaceily for charities, but projects that benefit the community as a whole. Urban Regeneration projects, cleaning parks, fresh paint, cleaning graffitti, cleaning streets after public events like football matches, maintainence of school fields and childrens play areas on weekends.
Id also advocate the benefits system being a minimal cash sum, but should be lkargely in the form of 'vouchers'for food (not alcohol of cigarettes) utililities (gas, electric, water) travel (bus/public transport) basicly the benefits system is used to provide food and essentials for living but cannot be abused with unesssacery luxuries.
Vouchers? Uh... No, just no. Vouchers are universally hated amongst people that have to use them. Immigrants are given them by the government when they come to this country, as are those on benefits at times. However they're seen as only a way to control those that use them. The government's telling people that they have to spend x amount of money a week on certain things. The way you're saying it means that people wouldn't be allowed to buy anything that the government doesn't agree upon. I guess then people couldn't get their kids presents without petitioning to who dolls out their vouchers then? If there's one sure way of getting the poor to hate you then its to tell them what they can and can't do. =P
I don't understand? Why is it not comforting to know noone will ever go hungry?
Until inflation kicks in fr all the extra money that would need to be printed to follow up on this plan.
Why would there need to be an influx of new capital? There is more than enough in the system currently (a lot of which doesn't actually exist on paper, but that's for another topic)
Why should hard working people constantly hand out for those that wont work.
Because the alternative is worse, vast increases in crime, homelessness and other undesirable factors. Taxes are essentially a levy paid for upkeep of the society you live in. I would rather live in a society with less crime and as few tramps hassling me for 20p as possible, if that means paying higher taxes then so be it. Also, the state not paying for such things often ends up with them costing more, look at the health costs in the States compared to elsewhere.
I am also in favor of working for benefits, But not nesaceily for charities, but projects that benefit the community as a whole. Urban Regeneration projects, cleaning parks, fresh paint, cleaning graffitti, cleaning streets after public events like football matches, maintainence of school fields and childrens play areas on weekends.
Those are real jobs that someone is paid a wage for. Do we sack them and then send them straight back but without the wage?
Id also advocate the benefits system being a minimal cash sum, but should be lkargely in the form of 'vouchers'for food (not alcohol of cigarettes) utililities (gas, electric, water) travel (bus/public transport) basicly the benefits system is used to provide food and essentials for living but cannot be abused with unesssacery luxuries.
The practical application of food stamps and the like didn't really turn out that well in the US.
Ribon Fox wrote: Ordinarily I don't like a single thing that drips from Mr Ken Livingstone's But this time i do agree... dear god what have I become?
He's still being a wee bit hypocritical, though. I mean, even if Thatcher's government started the downfall as he sees it, Labour hardly stepped in and fixed these problems.
Perhaps that's what he's alluding to when he claims Labour need to step away from "Thatcherite" policies.
I think his best point is the comparison between Attlee and Thatcher. Attlee was a quiet man who got gak done, he sorted out the economy and set up the NHS and welfare state, everything was about the country while he took a back seat and acted like a chairman rather than a president.
At the time Atlee hadnt needed to contend with a burdgeoning NHS and the welfare state as he implemented them. His nationalisation of the industries although profitable initially began to collapse by the mid 70s during the militant unions and mounting inflation. It ended up contributing to the problems faced by the Governments at the time. Had previous governments initiated reforms and stood up to the unions earlier, then the miners strikes and mass closure of the mines of the 80s might have been avoided or much less prevalent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't understand? Why is it not comforting to know noone will ever go hungry?
Until inflation kicks in fr all the extra money that would need to be printed to follow up on this plan.
Why would there need to be an influx of new capital? There is more than enough in the system currently (a lot of which doesn't actually exist on paper, but that's for another topic)
To pay everyone 10'000 for doing nothing? more would be needed and taxes raised. Paper finances would need to be printed, thus inflation increases,
Why should hard working people constantly hand out for those that wont work.
Because the alternative is worse, vast increases in crime, homelessness and other undesirable factors. Taxes are essentially a levy paid for upkeep of the society you live in. I would rather live in a society with less crime and as few tramps hassling me for 20p as possible, if that means paying higher taxes then so be it. Also, the state not paying for such things often ends up with them costing more, look at the health costs in the States compared to elsewhere.
Didnt say those that are looking for jobs, those that actively wont work, satisfied with the benefits culture, i dont have the figures and its too late for me to find them, but id wager that majority of petty crime is not performed by those actively looking for or in jobs.
I am also in favor of working for benefits, But not nesaceily for charities, but projects that benefit the community as a whole. Urban Regeneration projects, cleaning parks, fresh paint, cleaning graffitti, cleaning streets after public events like football matches, maintainence of school fields and childrens play areas on weekends.
Those are real jobs that someone is paid a wage for. Do we sack them and then send them straight back but without the wage?
Nope, just a job title change... serious manpower would be needed to direct the volunteers, if anything, it would open up more jobs, as its soeone needs to instruct how to operate machinery, organise and direct and instruct volunteers etc. There are too many areas of urban degeneration and too few finances and manpower to maintain them.
Id also advocate the benefits system being a minimal cash sum, but should be lkargely in the form of 'vouchers'for food (not alcohol of cigarettes) utililities (gas, electric, water) travel (bus/public transport) basicly the benefits system is used to provide food and essentials for living but cannot be abused with unesssacery luxuries.
The practical application of food stamps and the like didn't really turn out that well in the US.
http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/news.aspx?id=801b809e-84a6-415f-9b41-42065d63c945 Seems to be that an appropriate value is the only drawback, some running oput towards the end of the month, but then how is that different from cash other than it cant be frittered What is it thats considered the major issue?
At the time Atlee hadnt needed to contend with a burdgeoning NHS and the welfare state as he implemented them. His nationalisation of the industries although profitable initially began to collapse by the mid 70s during the militant unions and mounting inflation. It ended up contributing to the problems faced by the Governments at the time. Had previous governments initiated reforms and stood up to the unions earlier, then the miners strikes and mass closure of the mines of the 80s might have been avoided or much less prevalent.
Attlee also didn't have massive oil revenues and had to pick the country up after a global war, I know which situation I would prefer to preside over.
Why would there need to be an influx of new capital? There is more than enough in the system currently (a lot of which doesn't actually exist on paper, but that's for another topic)
To pay everyone 10'000 for doing nothing? more would be needed and taxes raised. Paper finances would need to be printed, thus inflation increases,
Again, there is ample cash within the system already. Costings have been made on a partial citizens income and it comes to less than the current welfare bill. http://www.citizensincome.org/FAQs.htm
Why should hard working people constantly hand out for those that wont work.
Because the alternative is worse, vast increases in crime, homelessness and other undesirable factors. Taxes are essentially a levy paid for upkeep of the society you live in. I would rather live in a society with less crime and as few tramps hassling me for 20p as possible, if that means paying higher taxes then so be it. Also, the state not paying for such things often ends up with them costing more, look at the health costs in the States compared to elsewhere.
Didnt say those that are looking for jobs, those that actively wont work, satisfied with the benefits culture, i dont have the figures and its too late for me to find them, but id wager that majority of petty crime is not performed by those actively looking for or in jobs.
Which is the system we have currently. I'm not sure what you're getting at about the petty crime, removing any income from those people certainly won't reduce the petty crime.
Nope, just a job title change... serious manpower would be needed to direct the volunteers, if anything, it would open up more jobs, as its soeone needs to instruct how to operate machinery, organise and direct and instruct volunteers etc. There are too many areas of urban degeneration and too few finances and manpower to maintain them.
It's not a job title change, its a job change, which means the original job is available for someone to earn a wage for.
http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/news.aspx?id=801b809e-84a6-415f-9b41-42065d63c945
Seems to be that an appropriate value is the only drawback, some running oput towards the end of the month, but then how is that different from cash other than it cant be frittered What is it thats considered the major issue?
I don't understand? Why is it not comforting to know noone will ever go hungry?
It's not comforting because per your statement, young people saw a significant decrease in productivity. Hardly a ringing endorsement, and not even remotely surprising.
There were also massive reductions in domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse, and road accidents. A similar scheme is being trialled currently in Namibia too. But, as I said, utopian, it's not going to happen for decades at the very least.
I hope it never happens at all, to be honest. In fact, I'd take up arms to stop it.
You would take up arms, and I assume kill people, to stop a system which treats everyone equally?
It doesn't treat people equally. If you can't figure out why, go away and have a think about it. If you still don't know, I'll explain it.
You are reaching now, I expressly said I have no issues with how high the top wages go, only that the lowest reach a liveable level. Don't make the assumption that everyone only cares about themselves, people are capable of empathy. A study found in fact that those people more inclined to hate often sit on the right side of politics, not the left.
Really? The pictures coming from Glasgow and Brixton say different. Also, my point was that you (and others on the left) seem to be of the opinion that the only way to help the lowest reach a liveable level is to take away money that other people have earned honestly, and at a much higher rate if those people happen to be earning more, because, well, feth 'em. They're rich. That's what I'm hearing a lot of these days. It's ugly sans-culotes nonsense.
Also please don't treat me as some spokesman for the left, I claim to be no such thing and have treated you as an individual. Please extend me the same respect.
Fair enough, but presumably you'll forgive me if constantly being painted as some sort of psycopathic ultra right-wing baby-eater by every lefty that crosses my path leads me to basically just say 'feth your feelings'. It's about time we started coming out of our closets and fighting back. We don't have to take the crap that's slung at us lying down, and I never will. I fight. Hard. You have no idea what the cost of being right-wing in the UK is at the moment. I get abuse literally everyday, sometimes from family members, but d'you know what? I know we're in the right and that gives me strength to just get on with it. So suck it up. I'm 'robust'.
£500m is far from incredibly expensive, especially when you consider the billions frittered away by Labour on the failed NHS IT system.
So I am throwing money at a problem, until I show otherwise, and then money isn't an issue?
Sorry, have you shown that having a doctor, carer and civil servant present at every DWP health assessment would be cheaper than £500m? I feel like I would have remembered that.
Reduction of spending doesn't seem such a motivation when it comes to pensions though does it? Pensions came to £74.2bn last year, while DLA came to £12.6bn.
Apples and oranges.
Yes, where the apple costs 6 times the orange, but the orange is the thing we can't afford for the fruit bowl.
No, not quite. The apple is the thing that everyone pays into via National Insurance, that guarantees an income upon retirement for those same people and for which we have an unlimited liability, which will only increase as the population ages AND grows. The other is an orange.
It's not a silly idea at all. Some people don't deserve welfare. It's a fact.
So they starve on the streets or turn to crime, how does that help society?
There's a third option.
Which is?
Work!
The OECD have shown that Britain has some of the lowest social mobility in the developed world, and no offence, but I trust their finding more than anecdotal evidence. If we using anecdotes though I know (as I am sure you do too) of many people who have worked their backsides off for years and never even reached the 40% tax bracket. This "master of your own fate" stuff is not helpful or realistic in making social policy.
Neither is relying exclusively on quantitative analysis whilst rejecting the qualitative. Again, I can come back and explain that in more detail but I'd rather not do so here, as this is turning into a wall o' text.
The voluntary sector isn't that large, there's what 2 million unemployed currently.
I'd be interested to learn the ratio of unpaid volunteers to paid staff working for voluntary organisations, but in any case, it would probably produce significant efficiencies to set up new voluntary organisations to fulfill the roles of some public services, utilising people on benefits instead of full-time paid workers.
I'm in favour of a flexible labour market, but yeah, why wouldn't anyone want everyone who is able to work, to do so?
I would love such a situation, but it is unrealistic. There aren't 40million jobs in Britain.
You didn't ask me if it was realistic, you asked me if it was desirable.
Eetion wrote: Why should hard working people constantly hand out for those that wont work.
I beg your pardon? I won't work? Who do you think you are, sunshine? I'll have you know my volunteering is almost literally a part-time job! And don't give me that "you're not the type of jobless I was talking about" rubbish. Your grand plans for benefit reform affect all of us unemployed, so when you say things like "won't work" you are talking about me. If you're not, then how will my benefits be treated differently to those who "won't work"? If they won't be treated differently, then how do you justify basing these reforms on people not wanting to work when you're also rolling it out to affect those of us who do want to work?
I hate to pick on you, because practically everybody on your side of the debate has had the same attitude, so you can all consider that an open question.
Eetion wrote: Why should hard working people constantly hand out for those that wont work.
Alternative response!
You don't. The government pays me my benefits. Yes, I know where the government gets its money from. Thing is, it would still be taking that money from you even if it wasn't spending an infinitesimal portion of it on benefits. You think your taxes would be lower if the unemployed weren't getting benefits? Don't make me laugh!
Honestly, this whole "taxpayer" this and "taxpayer" that talk is utterly obnoxious. The way people talk about "handing out cash" - especially to immigrants! - you'd think that government officials knock on their door every other night, making them come down to the front door in their nightgown, all bleary eyed, and demand they hand over a fiver.
My benefits do not affect you. They don't affect any of you, so please drop the whole suffering martyr routine. I am not thankful to you for providing the taxes that pay my benefits, because you would have had to pay those taxes anyway, and I am not thankful to the government, because this is what they're here from. When I manage to get back into full-time employment, I certainly won't demand thanks or praise either. Hey, and if any of you want to enjoy the good life like me, feel free to quit or lose your jobs. Join the party! Being unemployed is super fun.
(Once again, sorry for picking on you in particular Eetion. That post was just such a good "best of" regarding the other side of the argument that I just had to quote you!)
Eetion wrote: I am also in favor of working for benefits, But not nesaceily for charities, but projects that benefit the community as a whole. Urban Regeneration projects, cleaning parks, fresh paint, cleaning graffitti, cleaning streets after public events like football matches, maintainence of school fields and childrens play areas on weekends.
Once again, if there are jobs out there to be done, that people can be paid for, let everyone apply for them.
Eetion wrote: Id also advocate the benefits system being a minimal cash sum, but should be lkargely in the form of 'vouchers'for food (not alcohol of cigarettes) utililities (gas, electric, water) travel (bus/public transport) basicly the benefits system is used to provide food and essentials for living but cannot be abused with unesssacery luxuries.
Toileteries, such as soap, shampoo, deodorant, face wash (yeah, not a luxury - even delicate soap is actually too harsh for those of us with sensitive skin), toilet paper? Replacements for non-consumable toileteries, such as hairbrushes and toothbrushes? Light bulbs? Replacing worn out clothes? Kitchen roll? Washing up liquid? Laundry detergent? Replacement cleaning materials, such as sponges and cloths? Phone bills? Haircuts? Dozens of other things that don't immediately come to mind?
None of these things are necessary, and I'm guessing they wouldn't be covered by vouchers (except possibly the toileteries). Vouchers are a solution born of begrudgement. It's basically "ugh, I suppose I can't let these people die, here's the absolute minimum you need to live". Not to mention the fact that they're supposed to be short-term, whereas unemployment can be long-term. Benefits are about helping people to get back on track. I lived for a month or two on the absolute bare minimum (hadn't applied for benefits, because I thought it would just be a short stint in unemployment). It was utterly demoralising and not conducive to finding a job at all. Not unless someone was looking to employ a shaggy, unkempt, miserable and de-energised caveman impersonator.
What does it matter to any of you about people "frittering" their benefits away? They can't get any more than they're offered. I'm guessing it's just a veiled way to say we get too much in benefits, right? Well, here's a story to make your blood boil! Due to some unforeseen expenditures, I was really short on cash one month. Every pound counted. There was also this film I'd been dying to see, but the closest place showing it was an entire train ride away! Expensive stuff, right? I went and saw the film. I don't even remember how I survived the rest of that month, nor what I needed the money for so badly (probably bills), but what I do remember is watching that film. I felt completely alive and revitalised. I felt like a person again. Even today, it makes me smile that I had that little light in the darkness. It's little moments like that that helped me through. How I survive should be down to me, because I know what I need and when I need it.
PS: Although not a smoker myself, forcing a smoker off of cigarettes would have a deleterious effect on their mental health. They are, you know, literally addictive.
I'd make them earn their benefits, though not quite in the way that the current government is doing. I'd make them volunteer an equivalent number of hours in minimum wage to the amount they receive. If you want to take, you must give back to society in some other way. No-one, not even disabled people (unless they are utterly incapacitated) should be allowed to receive money for nothing. Or chicks for free.
Which reduces the amount of work available for anyone looking for a paid job, as can be seen currently.
Nope. I'd make them work in the voluntary sector.
Sorry, but the "forced work" malarkey is a honking load of shash for a number of reasons. Starting with your voluntary idea...
I wasn't going to bother replying to you because I seem to have addressed some of the issues you raise here in my replies to the other guy, but since you think you're so clever, I thought I'd do you the honour. Hey, just think! You could print out a screen-grab of me bothering to reply to you and put in your CV! Here's goes:
First off, there are plenty of charities that would tell you where to shove your forced "volunteering". Oxfam, where I volunteer, refuses to accept "volunteers" from work scheme placements, because it's against their ethics. I think my local British Heart Foundation shop might be down with the scheme, but don't take my word for it.
I made no mention of charities. That's all you, star. What I will say is this: in the private school for Autistic and Dyslexic children where I volunteer in my spare time, they would take you and 5 of your mates tomorrow. In fact, I hear that many schools now only take TAs on an initial voluntary basis, though I can't vouch for the veracity of that. In any case, as someone else has already rightly pointed out, there are a variety of different areas in which one could volunteer.
Now, as we'll have to come crawling back to the private or public sectors, let's just recap the reasons we're all aware of (including you, it seems) regarding why, exactly, it is a honking load of shash.
Woah there, sweetheart. When talking out of one's backside, don't expect others to engage in conversation with it. I don't agree that we have to come crawling back to the private sector. Indeed, I'd sooner see new voluntary organisations set up (which the government has done, in fairness), than farm people out to private companies, not because its a bad idea, but because its a bad political move at this time. It opened up the coalition to unneccesary criticism and hilarious accusations of 'slavery' by nose-ring wearers. It's not slavery, it's work experience for people who might not have it. You can leave.
If you get a fething job.
Maybe I'm not a vengeance-fuelled, hate-filled monster, but when I hear sensationalist headlines like "feckless scroungers get more than hard-working employees", my initial thought isn't "those fiends! throw them onto the streets!", it's "how in the hell can low-wage employees be getting treated so badly in this day and age?". But, because it's easier to punish than render assistance
Nope, wrong again. It's much, much easier to render 'assistance' (money, basically). Politically, anyway. How do you think Labour stayed in for 13 years? Spend, spend, spend.
Fahmeena is 30 years old. She can’t walk or talk and has an estimated mental age of about 3 years old.
She likes to be called Princess Meena. Here she is:
ATOS – in their wisdom – have assessed her and have decided that Princess Meena doesn’t need any benefits and she should go and get a job instead.
So Meena’s sister – Farzana – has decided to turn to social media to ask for ideas about what job she could do.
Here’s some information to help you with ideas for work for Meena:
Meena has Profound Multiple Learning Disabilities (PMLD), brain damage, Cerebral Palsy, can’t talk, can’t walk, has a mental age of 3, is incontinent and likes wearing pink and Minnie the Mouse headbands as well as making gak bombs.
If you have any ideas for jobs that Meena can do, you can post your ideas under the hashtag #JobsforMeena on Twitter.
Presumably Princess Meena is an example of one of the myriad ’scroungers’ unfairly claiming disability benefits we hear so much about.
Not a word of this is satire I can assure you, but I’m sure many people will have the same question as I have.
What have we become in this once great country that we turn our backs on people like Meena?
Aww. That's a shame. Genuinely. Thing is, Atos didn't decide not to allow her to live on benefits, it was the DWP.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Pumpkin - PM me your location and a brief outline of your skills and I will find you a job by this time tomorrow. You up for it?
It's not comforting because per your statement, young people saw a significant decrease in productivity. Hardly a ringing endorsement, and not even remotely surprising.
The reduction in young people lead to higher levels of graduates due to no immediate financial pressures.
It doesn't treat people equally. If you can't figure out why, go away and have a think about it. If you still don't know, I'll explain it.
Universal benefit, single flat rate of income tax. I don't see any inequality. Please explain.
Really? The pictures coming from Glasgow and Brixton say different. Also, my point was that you (and others on the left) seem to be of the opinion that the only way to help the lowest reach a liveable level is to take away money that other people have earned honestly, and at a much higher rate if those people happen to be earning more, because, well, feth 'em. They're rich. That's what I'm hearing a lot of these days. It's ugly sans-culotes nonsense.
Nope, I couldn't care less about the rich, I would make sure people were paid a living wage and that corporations paid their fething taxes. The real welfare spending in this country goes to businesses (often multi-nationals), not individuals.
There's a third option.
Which is?
Work!
Assuming there is an available job immediately, if not then the person is stuffed.
The OECD have shown that Britain has some of the lowest social mobility in the developed world, and no offence, but I trust their finding more than anecdotal evidence. If we using anecdotes though I know (as I am sure you do too) of many people who have worked their backsides off for years and never even reached the 40% tax bracket. This "master of your own fate" stuff is not helpful or realistic in making social policy.
Neither is relying exclusively on quantitative analysis whilst rejecting the qualitative. Again, I can come back and explain that in more detail but I'd rather not do so here, as this is turning into a wall o' text.
Every single academic analysis I've seen has shown that social mobility is getting worse and is one of the worst in the developed world, lots of forms of data are used, quantitative, qualitative and meta analysis. It always ends up with the same conclusion. I'm not refuting you knowing people who have done well for themselves, just positing that there may be some conformation bias in how you think about social mobility.
I'm in favour of a flexible labour market, but yeah, why wouldn't anyone want everyone who is able to work, to do so?
I would love such a situation, but it is unrealistic. There aren't 40million jobs in Britain.
You didn't ask me if it was realistic, you asked me if it was desirable.
You sure?
I'm more interested in your opinion on it's possibility than it's desirability.
Albatross wrote: I made no mention of charities. That's all you, star. What I will say is this: in the private school for Autistic and Dyslexic children where I volunteer in my spare time, they would take you and 5 of your mates tomorrow. In fact, I hear that many schools now only take TAs on an initial voluntary basis, though I can't vouch for the veracity of that. In any case, as someone else has already rightly pointed out, there are a variety of different areas in which one could volunteer.
And yet my original point stands: there's not even close to enough places in any organisation that isn't a profit-making one.
Woah there, sweetheart. When talking out of one's backside, don't expect others to engage in conversation with it. I don't agree that we have to come crawling back to the private sector. Indeed, I'd sooner see new voluntary organisations set up (which the government has done, in fairness), than farm people out to private companies, not because its a bad idea, but because its a bad political move at this time. It opened up the coalition to unneccesary criticism and hilarious accusations of 'slavery' by nose-ring wearers. It's not slavery, it's work experience for people who might not have it. You can leave.
If you get a fething job.
How convenient that you side-stepped the reasons I gave for it being a bad idea.
Even in terms of the government setting up new "voluntary" organisations for people on benefits, if there's work to be done, why ring-fence it? It should be open to all of us to apply for.
Albatross wrote: Aww. That's a shame. Genuinely. Thing is, Atos didn't decide not to allow her to live on benefits, it was the DWP.
I'm not sure it's a shame, it's certainly an outrageous treatment of the most utterly vulnerable in our society, someone that should be protected by our state and it's support mechanisms.
Are you not angered by this as I am? Also, don't ATOS assess the suitability for work? Why is this the DWP's stupidity rather than theirs?
Albatross wrote: Aww. That's a shame. Genuinely. Thing is, Atos didn't decide not to allow her to live on benefits, it was the DWP.
Based on nothing but Atos's assessment. That's how the system's set up. Atos knew full well what would happen to her, whereas the DWP weren't aware of the extent of her disabilities.
Albatross wrote: Automatically Appended Next Post: @Pumpkin - PM me your location and a brief outline of your skills and I will find you a job by this time tomorrow. You up for it?
Was there a particular point in your life where you turned into a seething, condescending jackanapes with poor social skills, or have you always been an awful person?
I've always been interested in the nature/nurture debate. Perhaps we could make a new topic of it!
It's not comforting because per your statement, young people saw a significant decrease in productivity. Hardly a ringing endorsement, and not even remotely surprising.
The reduction in young people lead to higher levels of graduates due to no immediate financial pressures.
Under the system we have now, poorer people have (or can expect) a roughly similar level of income when studying at university. I should know I was one of them etc.
It doesn't treat people equally. If you can't figure out why, go away and have a think about it. If you still don't know, I'll explain it.
Universal benefit, single flat rate of income tax. I don't see any inequality. Please explain.
One group of people is paying for it out of money they have earned, another is not. Also, poor people will still be comparatively poor, you've just moved the baseline. Still not equal.
Really? The pictures coming from Glasgow and Brixton say different. Also, my point was that you (and others on the left) seem to be of the opinion that the only way to help the lowest reach a liveable level is to take away money that other people have earned honestly, and at a much higher rate if those people happen to be earning more, because, well, feth 'em. They're rich. That's what I'm hearing a lot of these days. It's ugly sans-culotes nonsense.
Nope, I couldn't care less about the rich, I would make sure people were paid a living wage and that corporations paid their fething taxes. The real welfare spending in this country goes to businesses (often multi-nationals), not individuals.
That's rhetoric. And I'm not even sure it's true that tax evasion costs more than the welfare state. Even if it did, corporations paying their taxes is a separate issue to welfare reform. I thought you weren't going in for the whole Robin Hood bit? In any case, I've yet to hear a government minister argue that corporations should avoid paying tax.
The OECD have shown that Britain has some of the lowest social mobility in the developed world, and no offence, but I trust their finding more than anecdotal evidence. If we using anecdotes though I know (as I am sure you do too) of many people who have worked their backsides off for years and never even reached the 40% tax bracket. This "master of your own fate" stuff is not helpful or realistic in making social policy.
Neither is relying exclusively on quantitative analysis whilst rejecting the qualitative. Again, I can come back and explain that in more detail but I'd rather not do so here, as this is turning into a wall o' text.
Every single academic analysis I've seen has shown that social mobility is getting worse and is one of the worst in the developed world, lots of forms of data are used, quantitative, qualitative and meta analysis. It always ends up with the same conclusion. I'm not refuting you knowing people who have done well for themselves, just positing that there may be some conformation bias in how you think about social mobility.
Albatross wrote: Aww. That's a shame. Genuinely. Thing is, Atos didn't decide not to allow her to live on benefits, it was the DWP.
I'm not sure it's a shame, it's certainly an outrageous treatment of the most utterly vulnerable in our society, someone that should be protected by our state and it's support mechanisms.
Are you not angered by this as I am? Also, don't ATOS assess the suitability for work? Why is this the DWP's stupidity rather than theirs?
Atos have a computer based questionnaire where they mark the claimant a number between 0 and 15 based on their ability to perform tasks, but they ask in convoluted ways. "How did you get here today?" for example, if you say bus, they mark you for being able to walk to the bus, stand waiting, interact with the driver etc. Their scores are then sent to the DWP who take them as gospel. My friend has a changeable condition which they said varies several times, no mention of this on the report, only their capabilities on a perfect day. They also refused to talk about mental illness when it was brought up, which is really quite shocking, to me anyway. Although I have only been in one assessment, so can't speak for every case.
Albatross wrote: I made no mention of charities. That's all you, star. What I will say is this: in the private school for Autistic and Dyslexic children where I volunteer in my spare time, they would take you and 5 of your mates tomorrow. In fact, I hear that many schools now only take TAs on an initial voluntary basis, though I can't vouch for the veracity of that. In any case, as someone else has already rightly pointed out, there are a variety of different areas in which one could volunteer.
And yet my original point stands: there's not even close to enough places in any organisation that isn't a profit-making one.
Woah there, sweetheart. When talking out of one's backside, don't expect others to engage in conversation with it. I don't agree that we have to come crawling back to the private sector. Indeed, I'd sooner see new voluntary organisations set up (which the government has done, in fairness), than farm people out to private companies, not because its a bad idea, but because its a bad political move at this time. It opened up the coalition to unneccesary criticism and hilarious accusations of 'slavery' by nose-ring wearers. It's not slavery, it's work experience for people who might not have it. You can leave.
If you get a fething job.
How convenient that you side-stepped the reasons I gave for it being a bad idea.
Even in terms of the government setting up new "voluntary" organisations for people on benefits, if there's work to be done, why ring-fence it? It should be open to all of us to apply for.
Albatross wrote: Automatically Appended Next Post: @Pumpkin - PM me your location and a brief outline of your skills and I will find you a job by this time tomorrow. You up for it?
Was there a particular point in your life where you turned into a seething, condescending jackanapes with poor social skills, or have you always been an awful person?
I've always been interested in the nature/nurture debate. Perhaps we could make a new topic of it!
@Pumpkin - PM me your location and a brief outline of your skills and I will find you a job by this time tomorrow. You up for it?
Was there a particular point in your life where you turned into a seething, condescending jackanapes with poor social skills, or have you always been an awful person?
If it makes you feel any better, I'm exactly the same in real life.
If people on benefits do work for their benefits, something I am entirely in favor of, applied appropriate to their skills and capabilities, then it should be work for the state, for the benefit of the people who's taxes are going into supporting them, not the private sector. Even clearing public lands and working on park upkeep and renovation and improvement of publicly owned sites and resources.
I saw this gak with the new deal temporary work placements back in the late 90s, they had to offer the worker a job at the end of the 6month placement or turn them lose and there were plenty of businesses just churning over 6month free labor at the tax payers expense. That is a failure. That is the equivalent of government propping up private industry.
Albatross wrote: Aww. That's a shame. Genuinely. Thing is, Atos didn't decide not to allow her to live on benefits, it was the DWP.
I'm not sure it's a shame, it's certainly an outrageous treatment of the most utterly vulnerable in our society, someone that should be protected by our state and it's support mechanisms.
Absolutely. It's shocking. Apologies if I appeared flippant initially, but, well, I am quite flippant. Also, shallow emotional affect. I genuinely can't help it.
Are you not angered by this as I am? Also, don't ATOS assess the suitability for work? Why is this the DWP's stupidity rather than theirs?
Yeah, it sucks I suppose. I don't really know how to feel about it though, because it's clearly propaganda. The fact that they incorrectly stated that Atos decided she couldn't have benefits, when the final decision is made by the DWP instantly set my alarm-bells ringing. Has this story been fact-checked?
Incidentally, I'm inclined to blame the DWP because it was probably some civil servant there who awarded it to a French IT outsourcing company instead of say... BUPA. Incidentally, I came close to applying for both the DWP and Atos's graduate scheme. Certainy fething glad I didn't now! Apparently I'm already a terrible person!
@Pumpkin - PM me your location and a brief outline of your skills and I will find you a job by this time tomorrow. You up for it?
Was there a particular point in your life where you turned into a seething, condescending jackanapes with poor social skills, or have you always been an awful person?
If it makes you feel any better, I'm exactly the same in real life.
And I was being serious.
Albatross you insulted Pumpkin and are now acting unashamed about it. Here's an easy link to this forum's posting rules, the first of which is to be polite.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: If people on benefits do work for their benefits, something I am entirely in favor of, applied appropriate to their skills and capabilities, then it should be work for the state, for the benefit of the people who's taxes are going into supporting them, not the private sector. Even clearing public lands and working on park upkeep and renovation and improvement of publicly owned sites and resources.
Yeppers! Take something from society, give something back... to Tesco!? It's just an open goal for critics of the government. Dave's had gak communications and strategic advice, in my opinion. I've been saying this for about a year. Boris' team is FAR superior. They've turned the guy into a rock star.
I saw this gak with the new deal temporary work placements back in the late 90s, they had to offer the worker a job at the end of the 6month placement or turn them lose and there were plenty of businesses just churning over 6month free labor at the tax payers expense. That is a failure. That is the equivalent of government propping up private industry.
Yep, same. I was just entering the workforce at around the time of New Deal for Musicians. Basically meant I didn't have to even look for a job and could continue pissing around in a band.
@Pumpkin - PM me your location and a brief outline of your skills and I will find you a job by this time tomorrow. You up for it?
Was there a particular point in your life where you turned into a seething, condescending jackanapes with poor social skills, or have you always been an awful person?
If it makes you feel any better, I'm exactly the same in real life.
And I was being serious.
Albatross you insulted Pumpkin and are now acting unashamed about it. Here's an easy link to this forum's posting rules, the first of which is to be polite.
Sorry, are you a Mod now? Have you sent Pumpkin the same post? Or is it just that you agree with him and not me?
Bore off.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wait, where did I even insult him?
"Britain does not have a serious ‘social mobility problem’, but it does have a serious ‘underclass problem.’" (6). Albatross, I read a bit of your social mobility article but how does this quote disprove that there isn't a social mobility problem if underclass children are having there life chances
blighted how is that not a social mobility problem?
You inferred that you someone knew more about their life than them. That Pumpkin was apparently too lazy to go out and find a job, despite having stated that they had been looking one. You could go into their environment and find a job for them no problem. Its quite insulting to be unemployed and for someone who has one to turn up and say that its your fault for not being able to find one.
When questioned on it you acknowledged that you had caused offense, but didn't apologies. It was a personal slight, that's why I called you on it. =/
Wyrmalla wrote: You inferred that you someone knew more about their life than them. That Pumpkin was apparently too lazy to go out and find a job, despite having stated that they had been looking one. You could go into their environment and find a job for them no problem. Its quite insulting to be unemployed and for someone who has one to turn up and say that its your fault for not being able to find one.
When questioned on it you acknowledged that you had caused offense, but didn't apologies. It was a personal slight, that's why I called you on it. =/
I don't think Alby was saying he was lazy, it could just be that Pumpkin lacks direction or guidance to make himself/herself more employable.
I saw this gak with the new deal temporary work placements back in the late 90s, they had to offer the worker a job at the end of the 6month placement or turn them lose and there were plenty of businesses just churning over 6month free labor at the tax payers expense. That is a failure. That is the equivalent of government propping up private industry.
Yep, same. I was just entering the workforce at around the time of New Deal for Musicians. Basically meant I didn't have to even look for a job and could continue pissing around in a band.
I went to work at a toy and model shop as a lad of 19 on the new deal, via a private 'training company', the upstairs sold GW stuff, roleplay stuff, model kits and paints glues etc. Some other guy on the scheme had left, they told me how terrible he'd been... So I worked there, went in an hour early every morning and worked on an hour past closing each night, painted up dioramas at home to put on display, helped set up a club for the gamers on Weds nights to up sales, ran tutorials, ran competitions for painting and modeling, upped their sales by 40%. Put heart and soul into it. At the end of the 6 months, they were 'making up their minds' so made me jump through more hoops, when I overheard the owners one day working out getting the next gimp to come work for them on the scheme, they lamented losing me but 'were fethed' if they were going to pay a wage when they could get free help on a rotating basis every six months.
Well, I was paid an extra 5quid a week on top of JSA for working there for 6 months, by the tax payer, by the hard working, so this arsehole got a free minion and pocketed even more profit.
I should have been learning real skills somewhere, renovating a park or building pathways on the moors or helping the elderly or the disabled. Contributing to the people, not enabling personal greed.
I don't agree that we have to come crawling back to the private sector. Indeed, I'd sooner see new voluntary organisations set up (which the government has done, in fairness), than farm people out to private companies, not because its a bad idea, but because its a bad political move at this time.
I disagree quite strongly with this. I think its an awful idea.
But my disagreement is not necessarily based upon 'slavery' rhetoric, but rather economics. Allow me to illustrate.
Jack has been on benefits for six months. Under the new scheme, he is forced to go and work at his local Lidl 20 hours a week in order to receive his current benefits. His benefits (being only 24 years old) are a mere two hundred and twenty pounds a month. Now this is problematic for a number of reasons.
Firstly, if we are to tally up Jack's hours worked, we find that had he been being paid at minimum wage he would have received considerably more money (just over double the amount). This makes a mockery of the concept of a minimum wage.
Secondly, whilst Jack is occupying his position at Lidl, he is filling a place that another worker cannot have. Lidl will not be inclined to hire another worker after he leaves, they will simply funnel in yet another person under the same benefits for work scheme. The result being that whilst Jack and his successors may well have new job experience, the number of jobs available is being severely curtailed by this very scheme.
Thirdly, it enables a private company to effectively have workers that they can treat as poorly as they like. If Lidl manager Dave decides he doesn't like Jack's attitude, he can make his life absolute hell for the thirteen weeks he is there. Dave knows that Jack will not be around long enough to make any kind of complaint against him that would be heard. Jack also does not have the option of quitting if Dave makes his job intolerable, as he will lose his benefits.
Fourth, it distracts Jack from searching for a permanent post whilst working for Lidl. It remains in the realm of possibility that Jack would actually miss out on a suitable job whilst being forced to labour at Lidl.
Fifth, the number of professions available through the scheme are severely limited. If Jack is an actor, and has been spectacularly unsuccessful at securing a job the past eight months, a stint at Lidl will not aid him. It will not add to his CV. It will simply consume his time and energy into an activity that will advance him nowhere in life. This could apply to a great many other professions, from being a translator, to a graphics artist, and so on. For people like these, pushing a trolley around Lidl does nothing towards helping them secure longer term financial security.
Finally, the fact remains that Jack's labours are being done solely for the benefit of a private profit making corporation. Whilst I would refuse to use words like 'slavery', the fact is obviously apparent that Jack is being compelled/coerced to labour at a cut price rate for the enrichment of the owners and stockholders of a private commercial entity. Something which is mildly morally dubious.
Now all of those points could have various counter arguments and solutions raised (for example, you could say to point five that people like this should switch careers if they are unsuccessful in their chosen ones). But the fact remains that taken collectively, they paint a picture whereby one realises that the scheme does very little to help people into greater job security, whilst doing a considerable amount to its detriment.
I could see the scheme working if the benefits receivers were placed in government run training schemes geared towards certain government/council infrastructure projects or tasks (for example litter picking, road building, the rubbish vans, etc). You could have a limited intake in industries such as those for limited hours per week (say, two days of seven hour shifts?).
I feel that if the state will be paying the benefits of these people, the state should benefit from their labours, and should continue to offer them the support needed to help them out of poverty.
Ketara wrote: [
I feel that if the state will be paying the benefits of these people, the state should benefit from their labours, and should continue to offer them the support needed to help them out of poverty.
Yep, I said that above and Albatross agreed as well, free labour to the private sector is detrimental from all angles but the business' own, and obviously they are in favour of free workers at the very bottom end of their strata.
Albatross wrote: Under the system we have now, poorer people have (or can expect) a roughly similar level of income when studying at university. I should know I was one of them etc.
As a full time student with OU I get a tuition loan, but no other funding, but that obviously isn't the norm.
One group of people is paying for it out of money they have earned, another is not. Also, poor people will still be comparatively poor, you've just moved the baseline. Still not equal.
Inequality will always come second to poverty for me, if that baseline change means that people can afford to heat their house then that's grand by me. It's not really about being Robin Hood, it's about finding a system that works and provides the greatest good for the greatest number.
That's rhetoric. And I'm not even sure it's true that tax evasion costs more than the welfare state. Even if it did, corporations paying their taxes is a separate issue to welfare reform. I thought you weren't going in for the whole Robin Hood bit? In any case, I've yet to hear a government minister argue that corporations should avoid paying tax.
It's not even close to the cost of the welfare state, which is £170bn odd, while tax evasion and avoidance is about £40bn. When I say corporate welfare I include such things as housing benefit and tax credits. The rhetoric you often hear is that tax evasion and avoidance is higher than benefit fraud, which it is. If people have tried to sell it as more than the entire welfare budget they have either misremembered or misrepresented.
As for a government minister arguing for a company not to pay tax. You do have the George Osbourne vodafone case.
For your consideration:
Thank you, I shall read that tomorrow. I would like to see evidence that changes my view, because that would mean things were moving in the right direction.
Ketara wrote: [
I feel that if the state will be paying the benefits of these people, the state should benefit from their labours, and should continue to offer them the support needed to help them out of poverty.
Yep, I said that above and Albatross agreed as well, free labour to the private sector is detrimental from all angles but the business' own, and obviously they are in favour of free workers at the very bottom end of their strata.
I'm not sure that Albatross necessarily agrees with the reasoning though, but rather thinks it's 'not a bad idea, but...a bad political move at this time.'
about politics than want to govern themselves'
Here's some better figures for you from later in the article.
I've seen it
