Baroness Thatcher has died.

[Castiel]

I only hope I don't seem that ignorant when I talk about anything going on in American politics.

Quite. It was funny though, which is what I thought it was supposed to be!

 

[BuffetSlayer]

Well in my opinion it is most certainly NOT ok, in fact if this is true and has sought to avoid tax on such a scale in such an immoral way she should not have a funeral such as this and she and her family should be stripped of any assets they clearly have ended up with due to her being in a privileged position. Those who seek power must be whiter than white, fgs its not like they wont be well enough off anyway. She touted herself as a paragon of virtue and fairness and stood up for what is right etc. Seriously, huge events can be sparked by things like this, as we languish in a recession where disabled people are having money taken off them because they live in a two bed flat, it is clear moral corruption, off with their heads I say.

I dont quite think I would go that far, sackings or prison maybe?

Anyway, finally something we (partly) agree on

 

[Biohazard]

I think i said some people are making out like she was universally disliked. I dont think they were trying to do so actively. Its just how it comes across sometimes. I just wanted to comment on that.

Yes, she was extremely divisive. Its clearly shown in this thread

All of the stuff in the media is being carried out by a vocal minority. I just wish some would acknowledge that. Even this thing with the charts, its like 20,000 sales or something. Its nothing. but the headlines of having that song at the top of the UK charts makes people think the hatred for her is more widespread than it really is.

ditto on the parties and celebrations. very small numbers of people but when focused on, makes the issue seem larger than it is in reality.

Conversely I think some people are regarding her almost as the second coming of Christ. It's clearly give or take, but what I was making reference to was this thread and it seems pretty equally split in opinion to me.

 

[Biohazard]

The one thing that no one can disagree on is that she was likely the last great politician, she actually put herself on the line to deal with issues and for that she deserves respect.

Something i cannot say about anyone since then...unfortunately.

I agree she had qualities, I can't agree at all with 'likely the last great politician'.

She wasn't that masterful at politics. Her party effectively raped her.

 

[Biohazard]

In fairness the proposed statue was in her hometown and was vetoed, it's surely then a new/different argument to propose a statue in London to take up the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square which has either not been occupied or only by temporary works. Support for one proposal doesn't automatically mean support for that proposal in all circumstances even when the parameters change significantly.

It wasn't vetoed. The Tories voted it down, only for Labour to run off outside and start fundraising anyway.

It's symbolic isn't, and there is a clear hypocrisy. Sorry to shatter the illusion.

 

[newbiejim]

Anyway, finally something we (partly) agree on

lol yes, I`m relieved about that

On a lighter note, I was envisaging the hordes from the North descending on the capital and just taking power, or is this sedition?

 

[Biohazard]

Are you honestly saying that the BBC Scotland page doesn't speak for Scotland?

No, the BBC speaks for itself it would seem. It is ok most of the time, when it comes to the SNP and Scottish Nationalism it clearly has problems with fair reporting. Greg Dyke himself revealed that the prevalent view in the BBC is that Scottish Nationalism is bigotry. Partly caused by the infestation of Unionists, but irrespective it is starting to draw some embarrassing criticisms from abroad "in our name".

 

[Biohazard]

As for your question, I'm not a fan overall. I think there is room for the banking sector, and it does indeed have a place in our society. However, I cannot condone high risk gambling with other peoples money even if the possible benefits are lucrative. The banks were (are?) out of control, and permission appears to have been granted by the state which is deplorable (or at least the state looked the other way). However, I think even within banking, greed is a good thing to a degree, but when it clouds judgement to such an extent that it clearly has it is folly. Increasingly risque trading almost brought the country to it's knees. Greed coupled with recklessness will never end well. That is why it is essential to put safety barriers in place throughout the industry, and from what I can gather it does seem like the banking sector is undergoing reform. Perhaps it is naive to think too much will change as making the sector too restrictive just sends the talent abroad. So in essence there is still, in my own mind, going to be state sponsored greed in the banking sector because of the very mechanics of how our country operates these days (IE no chance of competitive manufacturing/heavy industry, heavy reliance on the square mile and other finance sectors). I don't like it, but I cannot deny that it is necessary at this time. Can we change things? I think we could to some extent but we have travelled so far down this road now that changing course is going to hurt our country for decades. We have no industry and to create it we would have to be competitive and to be competitive would mean losing the NMW at the very least, or find lucrative niche markets. But niche markets tend to be small and volatile and are probably not a good bet for sustaining a country.

NMW is not harming this economy or preventing industrial resurgence, it's the spending cuts and City respectively. Nearly everyone in the world is screaming this with the former. They don't want to take the risk with industry in terms of the latter now.

You would never see the likes of Rolls Royce started today for example, and that's largely down to the risk aversion not lack of capital.

Financial greed in general is a diverse topic. I suppose you could argue that any ambition to better your life is greed by the very nature of "wanting more". I think a certain level of greed in daily life is healthy if it encourages the majority of people to do better for themselves and vicariously the country benefits. Ambition should be nurtured but the difference between ambitious greed and the perceived greed of the miners, for example, is that ambition means you strive for better (more) but usually that goes hand in hand with progression and development. IE a promotion, the next rung on the ladder and so on and so forth. With the miners, from what I can gather, they were asking for more, more and more but in reality they were still doing the same job, so in effect they were asking for their roles (position in society?) to be elevated above those of others in industry (special treatment). Whilst ambition in the main is a good thing and essential for development, it has to be reasonable. I would like to be earning more money, but I understand I have to develop and advance for that to happen. I can't just keep asking my MD for more money for doing the same job because I feel I am worth more than I was last year.

I notice a slight change in your tone when drawing back to the miners, is this just me?

It seems like you're a bit more accepting of the current situation to back when in comparative terms.

I do not like the idea of special treatment even though it clearly exists in present day. Mainly because it creates division and makes a mockery of our so called democracy and in many cases undermines the justice system. I don't see why a politician or a banker should evade justice because they are wealthy or influential but I accept that it is naive to think it will change any time soon. To be fair, things have been a little better in recent years and a large part of that has been down to the media exposes (another divisive topic!). Unfortunately the state had egg on it's face and now wants to make the media industry pay (from what I can tell). That said, some of the media tactics were deplorable, so as with any debate there are good and bad elements on both sides.

I can see how you are saying that, but to be honest Westminster has not went to war with the media. If anything the Conservatives don't want to upset their backers. (Holyrood has practically nothing to lose in that respect it's under constant media barrage anyway it's normality here and has been for six years. "We're" still holding the fort metaphorically speaking).

What happened to the media, it managed to accomplish all by itself quite spectacularly and should stand as a warning against Laissez-faire market policies. But this is another topic.

With regard to the bail outs, the very core of me says no we should not have done so. What is acceptable for the man on the street should be acceptable for a large loss making bank. If you run your business into the ground, you go to the wall. End of. I apply that not just to the banking sector but also to the car industry too. On one level I can see that the financial crisis was not the car industries making, but it did seem distinctly like they were trying to take advantage of the situation by asking for a bail out. On the other hand, there have been thousands of small business that have gone to the wall and the government did nothing to help them, and they are still struggling to get the banks to give business loans.

It's not as if the crash was 'it' either, there has been a plague of scandal in the past five years and it's as if nothing really happened at all.

However, in the interests of the nation I am not sure whether letting the banks go under was the right thing to do at the time. Part of me feels like it would have been catastrophic and the only people suffering would be those least able to afford it and suffering more than they would if we bailed the banks out. If we did let the banks collapse I can't help feeling we would have been far worse off. As much as I loathe tax payer bail outs, my current feeling is that they were necessary to avoid a far deeper, far harder recession. My own, perhaps bordering on 'tin foil hat' view, is that the country is run by wealthy bankers and business men. It has been for a long time and perhaps the reason we have so many malleable politicians is because A) most of them are on the take or have a vested interest in one or many enterprises, and B) because of point A they are simply puppets. I find it a bit of an interesting reflection that the government smashed the unions for trying to take control, but appear to happily acquiesce to the finance/business sector who (without a doubt in my own mind) directly influence policy decisions. But then I suppose large amounts of money can help persuade anyone that black is white, can't it?

With regard to personal finance/material greed that is a complex issue. We do seem to have developed into a society with a "must have it now" mindset. I know that's a rather sweeping statement to make but with the personal financial debt figures running into trillions, it does seem to support that claim. My grandfather (a miner by the way) always said "if you cant afford you don't have". That message seems to have been lost by subsequent generations, and I also feel the behaviour of he banks in plying people with finance has been disgusting. It smacks of exploitation for profit, and yes I know people should know better than to get into debt but not everyone is as clued up as they should be. They see the prize but don't appreciate the implications for getting it (perhaps another example of reckless greed?). I think the banks have to shoulder part of the blame though and should have a role to play in responsible lending. For example, the mortgage sector was a joke back in the early-mid noughties. Banks were lending 5x (I have read reports as high as 7x!) a persons wage and not being overly diligent on ensuring affordability. I think they call that toxic debt?

This was Thatcher's de-regulation in full swing. The Anglo-America capitalist system has discredited itself, but there is no appetite to truthfully turn away from it. "The Lady is not for turning" seems to still run deep in the Establishment.

I feel our current situation in this country is a direct result of reckless greed, mismanagement and profiteering. Whilst a certain level of greed/ambition is healthy, I think we let it go too far.

Does that help to give you an insight to my thoughts? I appreciate they are anecdotal so my apologies if you were expecting informed debate. I would have to do far more background reading on it to offer a more rounded discussion, sorry.

Yes it does, I still get the feeling you give the miners a bit more of a hard time. There's nothing wrong with 'old school' banking and investment either, we've long had varying industries with varying risk and reward.

I fail to see why these principles apply to one, and not the other. That's the false assumption and dissection that appears to fault some of these discussions or opinions.

 

[semi-pro waster]

It wasn't vetoed. The Tories voted it down, only for Labour to run off outside and start fundraising anyway.

It's symbolic isn't, and there is a clear hypocrisy. Sorry to shatter the illusion.

I stand corrected but a statue hasn't been put up in her hometown for whatever reason. To say that all locations are equal for all purposes is rather stretching a point - if I say I'm in favour of wearing sandals on the beach in Mexico does it also stand to reason that I'm in favour of wearing sandals on the beach in Scotland?

It may or may not be that Labour hold a hypocritical position on this issue but what you've presented so far doesn't lead to a definite conclusion in that regard. I don't believe that the fourth plinth at Trafalgar Square is quite the same proposition as a town centre spot in Grantham - with all due respect to Grantham it's on a slightly different scale.

 

[theleg]

Conversely I think some people are regarding her almost as the second coming of Christ. It's clearly give or take, but what I was making reference to was this thread and it seems pretty equally split in opinion to me.

yeah some people do seem to go overboard I mean i liked the old girl and thought she did a good job overall...but at the end of the day, she was a politician.....


Im not sure this thread is equally split..but i dont have the motivation to go and tally up the posts

 

[SexyGreyFox]

FAO newbiejim,

After reading your posts and your suggestion that my experiences could have been clouded I am the type of person who likes to prove myself wrong and I've done it many times on here before so I do have history.
My Sister In Law has been down while I fixed her Android tablet, the subject got onto Miners and she opened up my closed eyes so YES I AM BACKING DOWN so no arguments from me anymore. My decades of thinking 'greedy Miners' (from Stoke) has totally been wrong.

If you'd like to know why I'll be glad to share it.

 

[Biohazard]

I stand corrected but a statue hasn't been put up in her hometown for whatever reason. To say that all locations are equal for all purposes is rather stretching a point - if I say I'm in favour of wearing sandals on the beach in Mexico does it also stand to reason that I'm in favour of wearing sandals on the beach in Scotland?

There are two hypocrisies running here, Tories in her home town who say she didn't want a statue at all, to the ones running around the media in Whitehall going on about her biggest epitaph yet!

Then we have Labour politicians ignoring the Tories and her wishes in Grantham by sponsoring one for near the museum instead. I saw one Labour MP, forgot his name but clearly NE England, and he was flabbergasted at the idea of any statue to Thatcher. The whole topic is a completely dumbfounding.

It's not quite as simple as your comparison, because Thatcher apparently didn't want sandles in the first place let alone be standing on a beach.

It may or may not be that Labour hold a hypocritical position on this issue but what you've presented so far doesn't lead to a definite conclusion in that regard. I don't believe that the fourth plinth at Trafalgar Square is quite the same proposition as a town centre spot in Grantham - with all due respect to Grantham it's on a slightly different scale.

They do. On so many bloody levels.

New labour = old tory.

 

[semi-pro waster]

There are two hypocrisies running here, Tories in her home town who say she didn't want a statue at all, to the ones running around the media in Whitehall going on about her biggest epitaph yet!

Then we have Labour politicians ignoring the Tories and her wishes in Grantham by sponsoring one for near the museum instead. I saw one Labour MP, forgot his name but clearly NE England, and he was flabbergasted at the idea of any statue to Thatcher. The whole topic is a completely dumbfounding.

It's not quite as simple as your comparison, because Thatcher apparently didn't want sandles in the first place let alone be standing on a beach.

What you're showing there aren't necessarily hypocrisies - different people can come to different conclusions based on the same initial starting point and both positions can be perfectly valid. My comparison was indeed simple and deliberately so, the idea wasn't to precisely mirror the intricacies of this particular situation but to point out that what might be a reasonable proposal in one set of circumstances may be unsuitable in another.

For what it's worth I don't think a statute is a good idea, either in London or in Grantham and not least because Mrs Thatcher apparently didn't want one.

They do. On so many bloody levels.

New labour = old tory.

There's not really far to go from here, you think they're hypocritical on this and other issues so it seems that you're unlikely to give them the benefit of the doubt at this point. Maybe you're right and maybe not but I'm not seeking to change your mind apart from to remind you that it's not always wise to blame on malice what can equally be explained by stupidity.

 

[Biohazard]

What you're showing there aren't necessarily hypocrisies - different people can come to different conclusions based on the same initial starting point and both positions can be perfectly valid. My comparison was indeed simple and deliberately so, the idea wasn't to precisely mirror the intricacies of this particular situation but to point out that what might be a reasonable proposal in one set of circumstances may be unsuitable in another.

I think its both ways, and it's groups within the same parties that are diametrically opposed to it not least of which the bona fide idealogical horror that is the Labour party wanting a statue anywhere in the first place.

For what it's worth I don't think a statute is a good idea, either in London or in Grantham and not least because Mrs Thatcher apparently didn't want one.

It's not stopping either party clambering to idolise over her ideology. Just two faces for different circumstances.

There's not really far to go from here, you think they're hypocritical on this and other issues so it seems that you're unlikely to give them the benefit of the doubt at this point. Maybe you're right and maybe not but I'm not seeking to change your mind apart from to remind you that it's not always wise to blame on malice what can equally be explained by stupidity.

It can equally be both at the same time, horrible stupid people aren't out of the realms of possibility.

 

[Castiel]

Why on earth would the Labour Party want to invest a Statue of Maggie Thatcher...she was the antithesis to everything that Labour stands for?

 

[Biohazard]

Why on earth would the Labour Party want to invest a Statue of Maggie Thatcher...she was the antithesis to everything that Labour stands for?

\o/

The force is strong in you!

But then the Labour party is clearly divided between Blairism and days of old.

 

[newbiejim]

FAO newbiejim,

After reading your posts and your suggestion that my experiences could have been clouded I am the type of person who likes to prove myself wrong and I've done it many times on here before so I do have history.
My Sister In Law has been down while I fixed her Android tablet, the subject got onto Miners and she opened up my closed eyes so YES I AM BACKING DOWN so no arguments from me anymore. My decades of thinking 'greedy Miners' (from Stoke) has totally been wrong.

If you'd like to know why I'll be glad to share it.

That's very admirable, thanks, and yes I would like to hear.

 

[Castiel]

\o/

The force is strong in you!

But then the Labour party is clearly divided between Blairism and days of old.

I realise the ideological shift in the Labour party, but even so what possesses a Labour (even New Labour) Party, then or now to propose to erect a statue of any Conservative, let alone Maggie. I could possibly understand it if they were agreeing to a proposal raised in Parliament as part of a cross party agreement, but not instigating the thing themselves...

I don't get it.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

That's very admirable, thanks, and yes I would like to hear.

Condensed conversation:

When did you and Paul set up home?
1983
Can you remember what his wages were then?
I distinctly remember I got £70 take home at Russell Hobbs and he got double what I got at Hem Heath.
What about overtime?
He never did overtime until we had the house and then he started to do it.
How much did he bring home then?
Around £70 so about £210.
Did he ever bring home £250, £300 even as much as £500?
(Laughs) No way, it was around £210 but it didn't last long because a few months later he was on strike.
I'll get back to that, can you remember you were at my house and we had a new TV and you said to Paul he could buy it with next weeks wages and Paul confirmed it?
(Laughs) I don't remember the conversation but we must have had you on and you took it in. We did have the TV shortly after yours because we could save quickly.
Can you remember how much he went on strike for?
He didn't go on strike for money, he went on strike because they were trying to shut pits down
I didn't know that, I thought it was for money
No definitely not, he left the pit in 1988 and he never went on strike for money
I stand corrected, why did he leave?
Because they wouldn't let him forget he went back two weeks before the strike ended, they were really nasty to him.
You say he was bringing home £210 in 1983 with overtime but how much were the face workers getting?
He was a face worker, he had the worst job.
I thought he was a fitter?
Well yes, but he was working on the face so a skilled face worker on that amount so the actual face worker might have got less.
So how much was he getting in 1988 when he left?
Not much more, just the usual yearly wage increase.
So in your opinion there was definitely no wage packet for a face worker above £250 between 1983 and 1988 at Hem Heath?
No and he was a skilled fitter as well and made sure the equipment was always working
A bit personal but did Paul give you cash and he could have taken some for himself?
No, his wages went straight in the bank.

So I've been taught a history lesson and apologies

 

[newbiejim]

Condensed conversation:

When did you and Paul set up home?
1983
Can you remember what his wages were then?
I distinctly remember I got £70 take home at Russell Hobbs and he got double what I got at Hem Heath.
What about overtime?
He never did overtime until we had the house and then he started to do it.
How much did he bring home then?
Around £70 so about £210.
Did he ever bring home £250, £300 even as much as £500?
(Laughs) No way, it was around £210 but it didn't last long because a few months later he was on strike.
I'll get back to that, can you remember you were at my house and we had a new TV and you said to Paul he could buy it with next weeks wages and Paul confirmed it?
(Laughs) I don't remember the conversation but we must have had you on and you took it in. We did have the TV shortly after yours because we could save quickly.
Can you remember how much he went on strike for?
He didn't go on strike for money, he went on strike because they were trying to shut pits down
I didn't know that, I thought it was for money
No definitely not, he left the pit in 1988 and he never went on strike for money
I stand corrected, why did he leave?
Because they wouldn't let him forget he went back two weeks before the strike ended, they were really nasty to him.
You say he was bringing home £210 in 1983 with overtime but how much were the face workers getting?
He was a face worker, he had the worst job.
I thought he was a fitter?
Well yes, but he was working on the face so a skilled face worker on that amount so the actual face worker might have got less.
So how much was he getting in 1988 when he left?
Not much more, just the usual yearly wage increase.
So in your opinion there was definitely no wage packet for a face worker above £250 between 1983 and 1988 at Hem Heath?
No and he was a skilled fitter as well and made sure the equipment was always working
A bit personal but did Paul give you cash and he could have taken some for himself?
No, his wages went straight in the bank.

So I've been taught a history lesson and apologies

Cheers m8, no apologies necessary btw, we had a robust exchange which entertained all concerned for a few days , no hard feelings whatsoever.