Surely, pragmatically, they cause less damage to the economy getting a small hand out on the dole than forcing them into doing some work badly.
Off Topic Bill Nicholson Arms
- Thread starter ShelfSideSpur
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Surely, pragmatically, they cause less damage to the economy getting a small hand out on the dole than forcing them into doing some work badly.
I'd still make the ****ers work. These people have to forget the idea that they can just ponce of the money that everybody else, who works, has to pay in taxes.
I though that I'd already made it clear what I consider to be the difference. Thatcher had deeply held beliefs that she was prepared to stand up for - whether you agreed with her, or not.
Stalin, on the other hand, was a psychopathic, murderous thug, who had no belief in anything or anybody, except himself & retaining power by any means necessary.
You could remove the names there and people would struggle to put them back in the right order!
I know what you're saying about the broken system NSIS, but I think it's intentionally designed that way. It's an easy distraction for the likes of The Fail.
You could remove the names there and people would struggle to put them back in the right order!
I know what you're saying about the broken system NSIS, but I think it's intentionally designed that way. It's an easy distraction for the likes of The Fail.
Sorry mate, but I entirely disagree with that viewpoint. I didn't agree with all of her policies, actions, etc, by a long way. But again, her beliefs were firmly held & she stood by them.
I thought that just about every idea that Tony Benn came up with was scatterbrained & misguided. However, I can still respect the fact that he was true to his beliefs even though I disagreed with most of what he preached.
Her beliefs were appalling, though. Being steadfast in upholding **** opinions doesn't make them any better. It just means that she was pigheaded.
She destroyed industry in this country and created an underclass with nowhere to go and did so intentionally. Having people fighting over every ****ty job is a good thing, according to her philosophy.
It keeps the peasants down and allows the 'good people' to pay them whatever they want to.
Her beliefs about the Falklands weren't firmly held, either. She was prepared to let them go, withdrew funding for their protection, then went to war with Argentina because she was on the way out.
I don't believe that they've got a legitimate claim to them and I'm glad that they were retained, but she didn't appear to give a crap until her popularity was waning.
From what I remember of Tony Benn, he seemed to be someone whose heart was in the right place, even if his thinking was fairly impractical and overly idealistic on a number of issues.
He stood for equality and peace, as opposed to Thatcher's elitism and division, so I have far more respect for him as a person, even if some of his opinions on reaching those aims didn't match my own.
Her opinions were ****, in YOUR opinion. Not everybody shares your view, by a long way!
I personally don't believe for one second that Thatcher stood for elitism, or that she purposely created division. She was misguided in thinking that the UK could not compete as a manufacturing base, but then she was having to deal with the reality of highly militant & politicised unions many of whom had no genuine interest in their members - the workers - they were merely tools to be employed to push the political agenda.
I remember those days well. We had a family business dealing in maintenance materials. Some of the stories about what these "workers" we're allowed to get up to, because the company was too scared of the union to do anything about it, would make your hair curl. Blatant thieving, etc was overlooked because if the company tried to sack those involved the whole place would be on strike in 5 minutes time.
Thatcher made mistakes as well as doing some necessary things, IMO. The UK was rapidly sinking under loony ultra left wing agenda of people like Benn. Things had to change.
I personally don't believe for one second that Thatcher stood for elitism, or that she purposely created division. She was misguided in thinking that the UK could not compete as a manufacturing base, but then she was having to deal with the reality of highly militant & politicised unions many of whom had no genuine interest in their members - the workers - they were merely tools to be employed to push the political agenda.
I remember those days well. We had a family business dealing in maintenance materials. Some of the stories about what these "workers" we're allowed to get up to, because the company was too scared of the union to do anything about it, would make your hair curl. Blatant thieving, etc was overlooked because if the company tried to sack those involved the whole place would be on strike in 5 minutes time.
Thatcher made mistakes as well as doing some necessary things, IMO. The UK was rapidly sinking under loony ultra left wing agenda of people like Benn. Things had to change.
Plenty of leaders other than Thatcher had deeply held beliefs they were prepared to stand up for, whether you agreed with them or not - Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, Ayatollah Khomeini, and that Godwin's Law bloke.
They tend to be referred to as "dictators."
Once again, virtually your entire list is made up of Psychopaths. These people believed in nothing - only getting power & retaining it. No opposition, vocal or physical, was tolerated.
And how does this make them different to Thatcher? Those who opposed her - the miners, the unions - were dispatched of as quickly as they were under any of those names, whilst those within her own party she deemed "undesirable" were removed from office and became non-persons under her reign in a very Stalinist manner.
What's your point?
Whilst I doubt you'll find much disagreement about the excessive power of the unions, I think it's pretty clear that she threw the baby out with the bathwater.
She destroyed entire communities and our whole industrial base. We simply don't make anything any more.
I'd suggest that the division and elitism of her policies are pretty clear from their results. Richer richer, poor poorer, massive unemployment and the sale of anything that wasn't bolted down.
She had no interest in the working class and created whole areas where work was virtually unobtainable.
S
Spur of the Moment
Guest
What's your point?
Whilst I doubt you'll find much disagreement about the excessive power of the unions, I think it's pretty clear that she threw the baby out with the bathwater.
She destroyed entire communities and our whole industrial base. We simply don't make anything any more.
I'd suggest that the division and elitism of her policies are pretty clear from their results. Richer richer, poor poorer, massive unemployment and the sale of anything that wasn't bolted down.
She had no interest in the working class and created whole areas where work was virtually unobtainable.
Wasn't going to get involved as sport and politics are never comfortable bedfellows.... But for those of us that lived through the early 70's, 3 day weeks and power cuts, there had to be a radical approach to stop the country disappearing down the pan. There was ALREADY a wasteland of industry, brought to its knees by inept management and extreme unionisation. Anyone fancy a British Leyland car??
I didn't agree with all the policies and there were areas of the country that didn't reap the benefits of others, but I know that at least by the mid-Eighties, we had some pride back.
What's your point?
Whilst I doubt you'll find much disagreement about the excessive power of the unions, I think it's pretty clear that she threw the baby out with the bathwater.
She destroyed entire communities and our whole industrial base. We simply don't make anything anymore.
I'd suggest that the division and elitism of her policies are pretty clear from their results. Richer richer, poor poorer, massive unemployment and the sale of anything that wasn't bolted down.
She had no interest in the working class and created whole areas where work was virtually unobtainable.
I can quite easily reply, what's your point? Merely to establish your political agenda, as far as I can see!
I disagree that her policies deliberately created elitism or division. She tried to establish a meritocracy.
As far as rich richer - poor poorer goes, I suppose that situation improved under 13 odd years of Blair & Brown? I don't think you'll find many who will tell you it has. But, of course, I'm sure that's all Maggie's fault as well.
As I have conceded, she made her mistakes. However, once again, I return to my original point - as I never intended this to turn into a political debate - whether you believed in what she stood for, or not, she stayed firm to her beliefs and stood up for them. More than you can say for 99.9% of politicians.
++http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22078110
Are they having a laugh? Politics have no place in football, regardless of who's died.
Football is supposed to be a working mans sport: she put 2.5Million of them out of work.
The Hillsborough cover up.
And I'm sure Newcastle and Swansea fan's in particular will be ****ing ecstatic if they're made do a minutes silence.
No, no. This idea shouldn't be touched with a ten foot bargepole.
Are they having a laugh? Politics have no place in football, regardless of who's died.
Football is supposed to be a working mans sport: she put 2.5Million of them out of work.
The Hillsborough cover up.
And I'm sure Newcastle and Swansea fan's in particular will be ****ing ecstatic if they're made do a minutes silence.
No, no. This idea shouldn't be touched with a ten foot bargepole.
Even if someone thought it was approriate we all know a minutes silence would be greated with boos.
just