Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Thatcherism was a force created by its opponents, not its supporters.

The Trade Unions were destroying Britain’s economy. That’s not to say everything that unions did then, or do now, was bad, but during the 1970’s they did a hell of a lot of stupid things. Particularly, they went on strike far too much and it was unqestionably damaging the economy.

Such was the ideological determination of the hard left, who were controlling the unions, that it was inevitable that they could only be beaten by an equally strong opposing ideogical force. The negotiation and common ground approach of Heath and Wilson had failed and Callaghan’s government was little more than a catastrophe.

So although this is a wider point, it is is summed up by the ultimate showdown: Thatcher vs Scargill. The miner’s strike was ultimately not about the close of mines and loss of jobs. That was what started it, but by the end it was about the hard left, embodied in scargill, trying to undermine the democratic process and bring down the government.

I wont go off on a tangent about Scargill’s betrayal of his union members. Essentially my point is that the unions had made it clear that they could not be tamed gently. If not for Thatcher we would have just languished on through strike after strike until someone else did EXACTLY what she did.

Now, im tired of the lefties crowing on about it. Please enlighten me, how would YOU have fixed the problem? Miracle up some money?

Were going to have a heck of a time all over again very soon. Cameron is going to inherit a financial nightmare in 2010. The Labor party simply cannot balance a chequebook. And what will happen? They will call the Tories the same they called Thatcher "why all the cuts?" "Cameron the axe-man!" etc etc

I might be younger than you. But i have a very good knowledge of the financial sector, and the simple fact of the matter is that we have NO MONEY. And if you have no money, you need to sell things, or cut things. It isnt rocket science is it?

I know someone (through someone) who wanted to see her family in Scandanavia over Christmas... Who was (supposed to be) catching a flight with BA in the next few days. She's in a terrible state over it... Now.

This isn't just about the money, it's about people's moral and support.

BA's basically b******d.

News just in the high court have ruled the strike illegal. Unite are going to ballot members again.

Yeah i didnt see that coming. Work you dogs! Work!

They should hire some Imperial Commisars to keep the lower ranked staff in check!

Apparently a lot of the Union members didn;t want the kind of extended action the leadership went for.

Given another ballot they may vote differently (or just vote, if they didn't the first time.)

Also, following the ballot result it is illegal to call a strike without seven days notice. It will be impossible for the Union to post out all the ballots and receive them back in less than maybe 10 days over the holidays.

That ought to save the immediate holiday season.

in my opinion these people deserve money, and usually more money than they get:
nurses
doctors
police
military
firemen (i don't get why the OP hates them, they do rise their lives every day to save others)
teachers
carers

people who don't deserve the money they get:
footballer
oh what the reck, most main stream sportspeople
bankers
public sector chiefs (you don't deserve a bonus)



looking at the BA issue, BA made a massive debt last year and big one the first half of the year, for its workers to strike at one of the few times it can make money is stupid of them, all they will do is bankrupt the BA, they will all lose their jobs and then that 25k they were fighting for will be meaningless when they are trying to get a job with another airline paying half the wage they were used to, idiots.

on the tube and post office, they get paid well but it is a job in some areas, strike is pointless all it does is make every member of public hate you for ing up their day.

@Bluntman
I think he doesn't like Firemen because they earn quite a lot compared to say, a Royal Marine - largely because the Marines can't go on strike...

Firemen? Dont support them, everyone wants to do your job and you strike?! Pull the other one. And you get paid more than your average public sector worker, and FAR more than soldiers, sailors and airmen.

Teachers? Coppers? Dont support them.

If you dont like your job, leave it. Thats my attitude, if they can fill your boots (firemen being the most obvious one) with ease, then they should.

Whilst I don’t particularly support the BA strikes, the above is Gak of the highest order. The OP should be ashamed to hold such heartless and repugnant opinions.

True soldiers, sailors and airmen don't earn as much but all that means it that they should earn more, not that others should earn less.

Postal Workers is another classic one. What possible skills do they have? An Ape can be a postal worker, same with a fireman. No skills

If you really believe that a Fireman is job that anyone could do then you are, quite frankly, a cretin.

He said they could fill the job easily, which they could. Don't lose your tampon over it.

An Ape can be a postal worker, same with a fireman. No skills

No, he said an ape could be a fireman. The quote is right there.

That is a statement that is not only ill-infomed but utterly spiteful.

LuciusAR wrote:

An Ape can be a postal worker, same with a fireman. No skills

No, he said an ape could be a fireman. The quote is right there.

That is a statement that is not only ill-infomed but utterly spiteful.

True that.

But you have to admit that BA striking is a bit OTT.

I don't think the RSPCA would allow that anyway.

...

The Poll Tax was a fairer set up than what we have now, the problem was it was exploited. If you are 18 and over and you are working, why shouldn't you pay your way? Why should you pay rates based on the price of your house, something that has gone up in price way more than most peoples wages.

As I said at the beginning, the Poll Tax was exploited by the councils, they saw it as a way to grab money.

Neither poll taxes nor property taxes are fair.

Poll Tax is unfair because it taxes the richest person in the country at exactly the same rate as the poorest.

Property taxes are unfair because they are dependant on valuations of property which are sometimes at complete variance to the ability of the owner to pay.

if you want to tax property, do it though inheritance tax for first homes and capital gains for second and other properties.

Income taxes are the fairest and best because they tax actual cash flow, which is related to ability to pay.

They are also relatively easy to administer, since nearly everyone's legitimate income comes from their job, or pension or via a bank, and can be easily checked and taxed at source.

Kilkrazy wrote:Neither poll taxes nor property taxes are fair.

Poll Tax is unfair because it taxes the richest person in the country at exactly the same rate as the poorest.

Property taxes are unfair because they are dependant on valuations of property which are sometimes at complete variance to the ability of the owner to pay.

if you want to tax property, do it though inheritance tax for first homes and capital gains for second and other properties.

Income taxes are the fairest and best because they tax actual cash flow, which is related to ability to pay.

They are also relatively easy to administer, since nearly everyone's legitimate income comes from their job, or pension or via a bank, and can be easily checked and taxed at source.

You're right about that, it needs to be an income tax deduction of some sorts. Just wanted to say that the Poll Tax wasn't as bad as people make out, just badly implimented.

Wolfstan wrote:
You're right about that, it needs to be an income tax deduction of some sorts. Just wanted to say that the Poll Tax wasn't as bad as people make out, just badly implimented.

The poll tax was a tax on the poor. It was a direct attack against those who likely didn't vote tory by the tory party and the Thatcher whore of bablyon herself.

As Kilkrazy has already said, it taxed at the same rate across the county reguardless of income or savings.

The rich of a nation must be taxed at a higher rate than the poor.

No, he said an ape could be a fireman.

Well, compared to the level of skill needed to be a Royal Marines Commando, and given the gulf in pay between the two, he may have a point. It may have been an exaggeration, but this is Dakka. That's not against the rules. Calling someone a 'cretin' however, because you don't agree with their viewpoint, is.

Albatross wrote:

No, he said an ape could be a fireman.

Well, compared to the level of skill needed to be a Royal Marines Commando, and given the gulf in pay between the two, he may have a point. It may have been an exaggeration, but this is Dakka. That's not against the rules. Calling someone a 'cretin' however, because you don't agree with their viewpoint, is.

Given the trite, offhand and grandstanding flamebait of the original statement, the comment is in context. Further, Lucius did not call Mattyrm a cretin, he said 'if you really think' in relation to the overblown and inciteful and frankly throwaway hyperbole statement that being a fire fighter was a piss easy job to do. I'd suggest finding people with 'the right stuff' to walk into blazing infernos to rescue total strangers at extreme risk to themselves requires far more than what a monkey does.

As someone with a firefighter in my close family, I'll just suggest that the comment wasn't worth wiping my arse with, but then I have a large number of family in the military as well and I would like them to earn more and most especially have a better quality of equipment when sent across the world to face people who want to kill them... Then again, I'd suggest that the troops being sent into danger with substandard equipment and not enough helicopters should give serious consideration to going on strike...

MGS wrote:Given the trite, offhand and grandstanding flamebait of the original statement, the comment is in context. Further, Lucius did not call Mattyrm a cretin, he said 'if you really think' in relation to the overblown and inciteful and frankly throwaway hyperbole statement that being a fire fighter was a piss easy job to do. I'd suggest finding people with 'the right stuff' to walk into blazing infernos to rescue total strangers at extreme risk to themselves requires far more than what a monkey does.

Yeah, context is important. He was saying he doesn't support them, because he has done one of the worlds most dangerous jobs - for a fraction of what a fireman earns. There are harder jobs, in which you are not allowed to go on strike. The 'ape' thing might be a bit off, and not necessarily something I would agree with - but Lucius' reaction was a bit OTT, to be fair.

As someone with a firefighter in my close family, I'll just suggest that the comment wasn't worth wiping my arse with, but then I have a large number of family in the military as well and I would like them to earn more and most especially have a better quality of equipment when sent across the world to face people who want to kill them... Then again, I'd suggest that the troops being sent into danger with substandard equipment and not enough helicopters should give serious consideration to going on strike...

They can't legally go on strike, IIRC - would it be possible to call a sympathetic GENERAL strike in the UK, though? I'm not sure - it'd be a good idea though....

Believe it or not I saw about this on CNN last night. They said though a judge orderd the people back to work, is their any confirmation of this? I know here in the states the president can order protesters back to work and if they refuse troops can be sent in to arrest them does the U.K work that way at all?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:
You're right about that, it needs to be an income tax deduction of some sorts. Just wanted to say that the Poll Tax wasn't as bad as people make out, just badly implimented.

The poll tax was a tax on the poor. It was a direct attack against those who likely didn't vote tory by the tory party and the Thatcher whore of bablyon herself.

As Kilkrazy has already said, it taxed at the same rate across the county reguardless of income or savings.

The rich of a nation must be taxed at a higher rate than the poor.

Still doesn't change the fact the principle was right... every person in a house who is working should pay, you all use the local services. The big problem was the councils went crazy with greed. I remember mine was about £300 a year and I think my folks place was £500 a year when paying rates. So if you took my folks, me and one of my sisters, the council was getting around £1,200 off the four of us. That's more than double than the old rates system. If people had been asked to pay between £150 - £200 than that would of been fairer.

I can't say that picking on the people with more money is any fairer either (general income tax yes). Do they use the council services any more than someone on a lower wage? You could argue that they might not due to them sending their kids to private schools. They are already being hit with higher income tax to help support society, why should they be hit again?

Wolfstan wrote:Still doesn't change the fact the principle was right... every person in a house who is working should pay, you all use the local services. The big problem was the councils went crazy with greed. I remember mine was about £300 a year and I think my folks place was £500 a year when paying rates. So if you took my folks, me and one of my sisters, the council was getting around £1,200 off the four of us. That's more than double than the old rates system. If people had been asked to pay between £150 - £200 than that would of been fairer.

I can't say that picking on the people with more money is any fairer either (general income tax yes). Do they use the council services any more than someone on a lower wage? You could argue that they might not due to them sending their kids to private schools. They are already being hit with higher income tax to help support society, why should they be hit again?

Every person in a house who earns should pay tax, they do, in every wage packet, according to their means and the amount they've earnt. The councils 'went mad' because at the same time all this occurred, the central government shifte financial obligation for several public services across to local authorities.

'Picking' on people with more money is entirely appropriate. The richer someone is, the greater their social responsibility becomes.
Do they use the council services any more than someone on a lower wage? Consider this, in Cornwall, growing up, many of the houses in my village became 2nd homes for the wealthy in the South East, they paid half rate Council Tax on those 2nd houses and let them as holiday rental homes through the year, earning additional revenue from them, just why the flying feth did they pay half rate? Because the rich whined that they only used them half the time... Unfair, greedy and socially irresponsible.

The comment was quite clearly nothing more than an overstated analogy. IE. It is quite common for people that have an "unskilled" job (something that you dont need to get a degree or have vast experience before starting it, or anything straight from high school) to be refered to in that context.

"30 grand a year as a fireman/copper/soldier? An ape could do that job!"

It is astoundingly obvious that i didnt actually think we could take a Gorilla from the zoo and it could fight fires, first of all, yes, the RSPCA would go mental, secondly, they are way more flammable than humans, i would rather pick a giant reptile of some kind...

Honestly, this is a public forum, you need to stop with the hurt feelings card. Lucius, i didnt bash any religions, racially abuse anyone or insult any idividual. If you get "offended" on behalf of the millions of firemen across the world you need to grow a thicker skin.

Now im all up for a debate about it. Do you think Firemen are worth 30 grand a year? More than most Teachers, Nurses and carers, and at least TEN GRAND a year more than a private soldier?

A 4 day on 4 day off several weeks of holiday paid a year and a cast iron pension fireman?

They dont deserve it. Public spending is from a finite pool. Id love to pay everyone more, but lets be realistic, the money comes from a budget for the public sector and it needs to be spread around. If all the other public servants werent such grasping fethers then we wouldnt have an issue, but its a fight for as much as you can get.

I will give you one point for accuracy, you said my comment was spiteful? Damn straight (see below)

And my final point is that it is EASILY the best job in the public sector. By far, when one position in your local fire brigade comes up, how many people try out for it? 100? 200? And they think they can strike?! I had to cover for the fethers back in 2002 when i was at 45 commando, i got pulled off my post deployment leave to do it.

I lost 13 personal friends in 10 years service (no injuries were sustained during the time we covered the fire strikes i hasten to add). The way i see it, the firemen cost us lives. If they didnt act like spoilt kids, striking for far more than they deserve when millions of people would happily pull on those boots (any serviceman and nearly any policeman, after all, you get to see the wife 50% of the week when your a fireman) then maybe they would have had more helicopters for medical emergencys in Iraq/Afghanistan, perhaps they would not have had people get killed because they didnt have enough body armor to issue everyone a piece?

Would you rather be a soldier (16k a year), a policeman around 21k but far more hours and far more stress) or a bloody fireman?

I was thinking of actually applying when i was due to leave the service, i mean, i know i would walk the training. But then i thought, no, because the very idea of it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

A job you can do right out of high-school and they want a better salary than a 20 year soldier. That is clearly taking the piss, and if you can somehow convince me otherwise i will send you a Christmas card.

@ MGS of course the armed forces cant go on strike! You either do your job or you leave. You know, the way its SUPPOSED to work.

Empchild wrote:Believe it or not I saw about this on CNN last night. They said though a judge orderd the people back to work, is their any confirmation of this? I know here in the states the president can order protesters back to work and if they refuse troops can be sent in to arrest them does the U.K work that way at all?

the strike has been decided as illegal so they can't go on strike now, but they can still have another ballot to decide for a strike. as strikes have to have a 7 day advanced notice plus the time it takes to do a ballot, there can't be a BA workers strike over christmas. i wish i could watch a BA plane at boarding time so i can see the hate in each customers eyes for the cabin crew that tried to ruin their christmas

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:Still doesn't change the fact the principle was right... every person in a house who is working should pay, you all use the local services. The big problem was the councils went crazy with greed. I remember mine was about £300 a year and I think my folks place was £500 a year when paying rates. So if you took my folks, me and one of my sisters, the council was getting around £1,200 off the four of us. That's more than double than the old rates system. If people had been asked to pay between £150 - £200 than that would of been fairer.

I can't say that picking on the people with more money is any fairer either (general income tax yes). Do they use the council services any more than someone on a lower wage? You could argue that they might not due to them sending their kids to private schools. They are already being hit with higher income tax to help support society, why should they be hit again?

Every person in a house who earns should pay tax, they do, in every wage packet, according to their means and the amount they've earnt. The councils 'went mad' because at the same time all this occurred, the central government shifte financial obligation for several public services across to local authorities.

'Picking' on people with more money is entirely appropriate. The richer someone is, the greater their social responsibility becomes.
Do they use the council services any more than someone on a lower wage? Consider this, in Cornwall, growing up, many of the houses in my village became 2nd homes for the wealthy in the South East, they paid half rate Council Tax on those 2nd houses and let them as holiday rental homes through the year, earning additional revenue from them, just why the flying feth did they pay half rate? Because the rich whined that they only used them half the time... Unfair, greedy and socially irresponsible.

Sorry MGS, I'm all for social responsibility, but I think the system can go too far and I think what you propose is going too far. What happens when people say enough is enough and leave the country, don't take the promotion because it puts them in to the next tax bracket or cut back on their overtime because it doesn't work out cost effective? I think the higher tax rate that is place is fair enough and believe some sort of tax at source would be better than rates.

I would also point out that many "rich" people work like dogs. My brother earned 70k last year, but he works 70+ hours a week, all the wall street lot have ulcers and die of stress at 55. The thing is, the old school socialists dont seem to understand that if you take the piss out of people, they push back. And if you make a system easy to exploit (the ridiculous wellfare system in the UK) then people WILL exploit it.

Still, once again the UK has learnt its lesson and the labour lot wont be in for another ten years. Although, people like him will still vote for them. They get their political alligence hard wired into them as children like suicide bombers.

And i have voted for both labour and conservative. Something that the lefties will never do.

Your supposed to vote for who you think is the best, not what your parents told you to.

Oh and now someone will point out that Cameron went to Eton, like that matters. Ken Livingstone went to a posh school but they dont like to mention that.

I hate ALL politicians, but the staggering hypocrisy of the left sickens me.

mattyrm wrote:I would also point out that many "rich" people work like dogs. My brother earned 70k last year, but he works 70+ hours a week, all the wall street lot have ulcers and die of stress at 55. The thing is, the old school socialists dont seem to understand that if you take the piss out of people, they push back. And if you make a system easy to exploit (the ridiculous wellfare system in the UK) then people WILL exploit it.

Still, once again the UK has learnt its lesson and the labour lot wont be in for another ten years. Although, people like him will still vote for them. They get their political alligence hard wired into them as children like suicide bombers.

And i have voted for both labour and conservative. Something that the lefties will never do.

Your supposed to vote for who you think is the best, not what your parents told you to.

Oh and now someone will point out that Cameron went to Eton, like that matters. Ken Livingstone went to a posh school but they dont like to mention that.

I hate ALL politicians, but the staggering hypocrisy of the left sickens me.

I know the pound is stronger then the US dollar but does 70k make you rich? I make almost 60k a year, and work my butt off and Im middle class.

Empchild wrote:

mattyrm wrote:I would also point out that many "rich" people work like dogs. My brother earned 70k last year, but he works 70+ hours a week, all the wall street lot have ulcers and die of stress at 55. The thing is, the old school socialists dont seem to understand that if you take the piss out of people, they push back. And if you make a system easy to exploit (the ridiculous wellfare system in the UK) then people WILL exploit it.

Still, once again the UK has learnt its lesson and the labour lot wont be in for another ten years. Although, people like him will still vote for them. They get their political alligence hard wired into them as children like suicide bombers.

And i have voted for both labour and conservative. Something that the lefties will never do.

Your supposed to vote for who you think is the best, not what your parents told you to.

Oh and now someone will point out that Cameron went to Eton, like that matters. Ken Livingstone went to a posh school but they dont like to mention that.

I hate ALL politicians, but the staggering hypocrisy of the left sickens me.

I know the pound is stronger then the US dollar but does 70k make you rich? I make almost 60k a year, and work my butt off and Im middle class.

To right. You earn over £50k here and you start getting really hammered on the tax, I think it's rough at £25k as well.

No kidding wow. I heard European taxes were high but didn't know. I am atm the sole bread winner in the family and I thought times were hard I can only imagine if I made 25k and got slammed on taxes.