Reply to: Thatcher in hospital for checks

[sasguru]

So to conclude this thread, the Thatcherites have been well and truly thrashed (but then they enjoy that, especially with a rubber suit and an orange in their mouth).

Move along, nothing to see here.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3251300.stm

Malcom Rifkind thought it was a mistake.

Note I didn't (and don't) deny it was theoretically fairer - but asking ordinary people (as well as the "great unwashed") to pay a lot extra all at once was always going to be a hard sell

[Bagpuss]

What a load of touchy-feely leftie claptrap. You and millions of similarly-minded muppets had been making use of countless benefits and services provided by your local councils without contributing a brass farthing. There is nothing wrong with a system that compels all of those using a service from paying for that service, but the great unwashed were happy for the older generation to cough up on their behalf when this was run past them. Those who could not see the fairness that the Poll Tax had at its core, even if it was poorly implemented, are now, in a great many cases, rearing a generation of like-minded selfish children who expect everything handed to them on a plate. And when you are starting out in life you damned well SHOULD be burdened with debt if you are the one wantonly running it up!!

"Great unwashed" what are you talking about? The poll tax was massively unpopular with the general public.
My parents never claimed off the state in their lives, when unemployment was high my father did indeed get on his bike and worked 100s miles from home. What my parents and many others resented was being asked to stump up large increases in tax to subsise the rich people who lived in the same postcode, this was enough to push many working famililies over the edge, hence the unpopularity.
The poll tax march was mainly populated with working families who had enough of being victimised, the way the police were used on the march to intimidate law abiding people was outrageous but that's another story.

As for a generation being burndoned with debt, yeah it's fine for the alright jacks who had a full grant and didn't have to pay poll tax, maybe it should have been backdated and some of you 'scroungers' and 'freeloaders' should have paid your fair share eh for all those years prior?
Take your argument to it's ultimate conclusion and we have to conclude the likes of yourself a 'freeloader' lest we have pay as you go services. Why not charge more for the heavy users of local services? those with large families who use the schools, health facilities, lesure facilities ad-infinitum, yeah where's my fcking discount for those freeloaders?

[Cyberman]

What a load of touchy-feely leftie claptrap. You and millions of similarly-minded muppets had been making use of countless benefits and services provided by your local councils without contributing a brass farthing. There is nothing wrong with a system that compels all of those using a service from paying for that service, but the great unwashed were happy for the older generation to cough up on their behalf when this was run past them. Those who could not see the fairness that the Poll Tax had at its core, even if it was poorly implemented, are now, in a great many cases, rearing a generation of like-minded selfish children who expect everything handed to them on a plate. And when you are starting out in life you damned well SHOULD be burdened with debt if you are the one wantonly running it up!!

Hear Hear !!!!!

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Anyway "Peoplesoft Bloke" shouldnt you be SAPbloke now?

I wish!

Been seeking a opportunity to x train (not just pay for a load of courses!) for ages - but realistically there's not not much danger - after all, all advertised gigs require experience. My plan was to get a PS gig in a place that's changing to SAP but it just hasn't happened - and probably won't

I have a bit of Oracle Apps experience and I'm not short of PeopleSoft work (yet) and I am investigating a few plan Bs.

[DodgyAgent]

Anyway "Peoplesoft Bloke" shouldnt you be SAPbloke now?

[DodgyAgent]

DA - at the risk of making things worse :-) I think you have a good argument there - and you make some interesting points.

My recollection of why she was deposed is a little different, but I'm not trying gainsay your analysis just for the sake of it.

The direct cause was that she was an electoral liability - no party wants a leader that they don't think can win the next election - Labour ignored this rule at the their peril in the 80s by electing people who made intellectual arguments instead of uttering press-friendly soundbites.

The reasons she'd become a liability were (IMHO)

Poll tax - she nailed her colours firmly to that mast and whatever the rights and wrongs, it was unpopular.

Europe - she signed away plenty but was squaring up for a scrap with Euorpe - as with all parties, divisions over Europe caused in-fighting, which she lost out to.

There is a consensus building here boys

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Fair point SAS, but the poor infrastructure and abscence of manufacturing is more a legacy of past labour governments than her. She can take some of the blame but not all of it.
Indeed the reason she lost the premiership so soon after ridding us of the unions was probably because she had no real grasp of economics or the realities of building large business/large projects beyond her dad's shop in Grantham. In fact I would go so far as to say that any more of her policies would have been a disaster.
What she did do was to get rid of the power of the Unions leaving others to move wealth creation along. Even lefties like Austin Mitchell accept the need for capitalism and the growth that it creates to increase our wealth.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...re-793664.html

DA - at the risk of making things worse :-) I think you have a good argument there - and you make some interesting points.

My recollection of why she was deposed is a little different, but I'm not trying gainsay your analysis just for the sake of it.

The direct cause was that she was an electoral liability - no party wants a leader that they don't think can win the next election - Labour ignored this rule at the their peril in the 80s by electing people who made intellectual arguments instead of uttering press-friendly soundbites.

The reasons she'd become a liability were (IMHO)

Poll tax - she nailed her colours firmly to that mast and whatever the rights and wrongs, it was unpopular.

Europe - she signed away plenty but was squaring up for a scrap with Euorpe - as with all parties, divisions over Europe caused in-fighting, which she lost out to.

[shaunbhoy]

Contrast the "all in in it together" approach of the Germans.

Not such a resounding success at Stalingrad mind!!

[BrilloPad]

Fair enough. I had a laugh when you placed me in the "state owes me a living" camp...
As for why the unions became so powerful, the reasons are a little more complex than the Labour government - although they played a large part. The British class system where certain people were considered "officer" class and therefore had an inherent right to the top jobs also played a massive part in the mismanagement of industry after the war. They also awarded themselves huge unjustified pay rises causing resentment in the "ranks". American and German managers tended to be technocrats who knew what they were doing. This "them and us" mentality is responsible for much of the failure of post-war industry. Contrast the "all in in it together" approach of the Germans.

Unions were cerinly helped to power by bad management - look at British Leyland. They did not use proper advertising or TV endorsements. Italian Job had trouble getting cars to use. Professionals wanted to use BL - but gave up and went to Ford who gave them as many cars as they wanted.

Perfect breeding ground for Red Robbo(was that his name?).

[sasguru]

Fair point SAS, but the poor infrastructure and abscence of manufacturing is more a legacy of past labour governments than her. She can take some of the blame but not all of it.
Indeed the reason she lost the premiership so soon after ridding us of the unions was probably because she had no real grasp of economics or the realities of building large business/large projects beyond her dad's shop in Grantham. In fact I would go so far as to say that any more of her policies would have been a disaster.
What she did do was to get rid of the power of the Unions leaving others to move wealth creation along. Even lefties like Austin Mitchell accept the need for capitalism and the growth that it creates to increase our wealth.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...re-793664.html

Fair enough. I had a laugh when you placed me in the "state owes me a living" camp...
As for why the unions became so powerful, the reasons are a little more complex than the Labour government - although they played a large part. The British class system where certain people were considered "officer" class and therefore had an inherent right to the top jobs also played a massive part in the mismanagement of industry after the war. They also awarded themselves huge unjustified pay rises causing resentment in the "ranks". American and German managers tended to be technocrats who knew what they were doing. This "them and us" mentality is responsible for much of the failure of post-war industry. Contrast the "all in in it together" approach of the Germans.

[DodgyAgent]

I acknowledge that someone like her was necessary at the time, but as Baggy has said she knew more what she didn't like rather than than having a vision of how to replace it.
Which is why Britain by most measures still has a much poorer infrastructure than it's European neighbours and an economy over reliant on the City. In that sense Thatcher's legacy hasn't worked out yet.

Fair point SAS, but the poor infrastructure and abscence of manufacturing is more a legacy of past labour governments than her. She can take some of the blame but not all of it.
Indeed the reason she lost the premiership so soon after ridding us of the unions was probably because she had no real grasp of economics or the realities of building large business/large projects beyond her dad's shop in Grantham. In fact I would go so far as to say that any more of her policies would have been a disaster.
What she did do was to get rid of the power of the Unions leaving others to move wealth creation along. Even lefties like Austin Mitchell accept the need for capitalism and the growth that it creates to increase our wealth.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...re-793664.html

[sasguru]

Isnt a student grant a state handout? or am I being dense here?

It could also be regarded as an investment in the country. Graduates generally pay more into the coffers over their lifetimes. Huge amounts of money has been spent raising the number of students while lowering the value of degrees to be almost worthless. That money would have been better spent subsidising the hard working but less well off to do worthwhile degrees.

[sasguru]

I stand entirely by what I said. Again you are trying to trivialise her impact by spinning the Pinochet incident into policies and actions that happened 10-15 years earlier.
As I said she was not perfect, but the policies she implemented had a huge impact on our lives today.. "Peole like you" try spin her frailties and errors as if they somehow held some sort of equivalence with her achievements. and if you bothered to read my threads then you will see that I have more valid criticisms of Thatcher than you do, but at least i make an effort to keep them into some sort of perspective.

I acknowledge that someone like her was necessary at the time, but as Baggy has said she knew more what she didn't like rather than than having a vision of how to replace it.
Which is why Britain by most measures still has a much poorer infrastructure than it's European neighbours and an economy over reliant on the City. In that sense Thatcher's legacy hasn't worked out yet.

[DodgyAgent]

Your point being? You really can be incredibly dense sometimes.

Isnt a student grant a state handout? or am I being dense here?