By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Thatcher gave workers a real say in whether or not they wanted to strike by introducing legislation that ensured industrial action by majority voting. This stopped the heavily Labour financed unions calling strikes for petty reasons. An act that at the time outraged unions but now seems completely logical.
Maggie was also one of the first world leaders to warn about climate change.
Yes, they said that. But managements take no notice of unions until they are sure there is some sort of genuine threat. At which point a ludicrously convulted process — you realise you have to have a ballot on whether you are willing to be balloted, right? - comes into play. The laws surrounding industrial action are now so deliberately complicated that most unions have to use lawyers to check the legality of any industrial action, and that it is impossible for any union to jump through all the legal hoops quickly enough to respond to any urgent threat to Ts and Cs from management. If a management is ruthless enough to do things with no notice, then there's nothing the workforce can do about it, because the union is legally prevented from responding quickly enough.
None of that is about trying to protect working people from oppressive unions. It's about trying to ensure managements can do what they want when they want.
And after that you have to give 14 days notice of industrial action to the company, after 6-7 weeks of balloting, voting results etc. by which time you have lost your case, or your work mates gone down the road. Unfortunately NW you are wasting your breath with some people as they don't WANT to get it.
Of course there are many groupings that contain both of them, some of which you and I are members - the human race, there are some groups were they are members and we are not - world leaders, and there are some groups in which you, I and Hitler are members and Thatcher isn't - males.
What I was trying to get at was that if you could line up the world, past and present going from the worlds nicest person at one end to the worlds nastiest at the other, then we would all have our place on it, and at some point people will draw a line in that list beyond which they feel people will have "crossed the line" and will rejoice in their demise. Different people will set up the line in a different order, and will set their markers in different places, but for most there will be a line.
There I managed to say what I thought I had said earlier with out mentioning any name. Hope that is clearer.
[Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
The group consisting of World Leaders and the group consisting of human males are groups based on a factual identity for want of a better phrase. The group of people that you or I would celebrate over their deaths is a purely personal group. You compare X and Y and consider they sit together one side of the line I might compare X and Y and consider they sit either side of the line it really is a simple as that but we are still making a comparison.
Well she was lucky in that through the first two terms she was fighting against a completely divided and ineffective opposition.
Two years into her first term she was massively popular and IMHO only the Falklands War puller her out of that. Inflation was raging, unemployment was soaring, it was ugly.
When she won her second term she won far fewer votes - it was just that Labour were in pieces at the time.
When she cam to office there were 10 Tory MP's in Scotland. When she was done there were ZERO. Poll tax anyone?
In fact the SNP openly credit her for giving them the opportunity to progress their particular brand on unhinged politics. They are even more nuts than she was but the serve as a reaction to the contempt that she showed to the Scottish people.
Yes she did a lot of good things - but by Christ did she make people hate her as a person. I respect some pf the things, totally disagree with others she did but loathe the way she went about things.
Totally agree. In addition she laid the ground break up of the Union.For many Scottish people she epitomises what Tories mean today and therefore there is only one blue MP in the whole country.Scottish people (who are generally community minded) look South and ask themselves "does it make sense to be attached to a country which consistently votes for a Tory Government when we never want one?" The other side of this coin is that if Scotland (& perhaps Wales) left the Union, English people may be stuck with Tory Governments forever. I live in a town which already has this situation and I can tell you it is not healthy and elections mean zilch because the turnout is only those 20% who read the Mail and loyally vote for what they are sure to get anyway.
Thatcher gave workers a real say in whether or not they wanted to strike by introducing legislation that ensured industrial action by majority voting. This stopped the heavily Labour financed unions calling strikes for petty reasons. An act that at the time outraged unions but now seems completely logical.
Maggie was also one of the first world leaders to warn about climate change.
You obviously dont know much about Trade Unions. They have always been democratic organisations and voting to strike has been a fundamental from day one. Thatcher merely beaurocratised the process in a way which makes it more difficult to conduct a strike. The idea of a strike being illegal its just plain daft. What is wrong with any group of people making a decision and then adhering to it?
Totally agree. In addition she laid the ground break up of the Union.For many Scottish people she epitomises what Tories mean today and therefore there is only one blue MP in the whole country.Scottish people (who are generally community minded) look South and ask themselves "does it make sense to be attached to a country which consistently votes for a Tory Government when we never want one?" The other side of this coin is that if Scotland (& perhaps Wales) left the Union, English people may be stuck with Tory Governments forever. I live in a town which already has this situation and I can tell you it is not healthy and elections mean zilch because the turnout is only those 20% who read the Mail and loyally vote for what they are sure to get anyway.
This is what really throws me. You ask why should Scotland be ruled by the Tories when there is only one Tory MP in Scotland. A valid argument you want Scotland itself to decide who governs it. However then you rather patronisingly go on to say it will leave the English people "stuck" with a Tory Government. Are the English people not capable of deciding who they want to govern them
This is what really throws me. You ask why should Scotland be ruled by the Tories when there is only one Tory MP in Scotland. A valid argument you want Scotland itself to decide who governs it. However then you rather patronisingly go on to say it will leave the English people "stuck" with a Tory Government. Are the English people not capable of deciding who they want to govern them
Obviously not - we got a Tory government
But back to the sub-thread on the use of "you know whose" name, if you re-read my post I did say "Different people will set up the line in a different order, and will set their markers in different places", and so I agree that where people sit within a group Is personal, but I did try to make the selection of who is in the group as impersonal as possible by using the words "if you could line up the world, past and present" and thereby including everyone.
By your own criteria, you are also making a comparison by saying that in your opinion they should not ever be considered in the same group.
The bottom line is I never introduced the name, I commented on another posters use (who also did not make any direct comparisons) and then merely used it in the same manner as the original poster, namely as a marker for the extremes of behavior. I can only assume therefore that your criticism of my using the name and not there's is due to the fact they are more supportive of MT than my anti-stance.
PS notice how I have carefully avoided repeating the name again in case anyone only reads that one word!
You say that was exactly your point, but I don't know what your point is. If my wages go up, but at a slower rate than inflation by your definition would I be better off? -I might have more money, but I could afford less food.
So what was the definition of poverty before her opponents changed it, and do you have any figures to show how that definition varied during her years in power?
Poverty has always been defined in terms of relation to overall wealth, not as an absolute. Incomes are always rising - so it has to be defined in relative terms. Otherwise we could just say: There was poverty in the 1930s, however incomes are much higher now, so there is no longer poverty. You remind me of my small boy, who reckons there can't be poverty in Africa because there are also five-star hotels.
The group consisting of World Leaders and the group consisting of human males are groups based on a factual identity for want of a better phrase. The group of people that you or I would celebrate over their deaths is a purely personal group. You compare X and Y and consider they sit together one side of the line I might compare X and Y and consider they sit either side of the line it really is a simple as that but we are still making a comparison.
Nothing Cliff wrote could be considered comparing anyone with anyone else, he was merely grouping them. You assess an individual on their own merits as to whether you like them or not.
This is what really throws me. You ask why should Scotland be ruled by the Tories when there is only one Tory MP in Scotland. A valid argument you want Scotland itself to decide who governs it. However then you rather patronisingly go on to say it will leave the English people "stuck" with a Tory Government. Are the English people not capable of deciding who they want to govern them
I am sure English people can make their own choice but the reality is that since the war,without the votes from Wales & Scotland we would never have had a Labour Government. In other words we would always have had Conservative Governments for over 60 years! You might think this is a good thing, I certainly dont as it leads to a dreadful compacency among voters in addition to having the same politics al the time. 60 years of looking after the better off at the expense of the poor seems unhealthy at best.
But back to the sub-thread on the use of "you know whose" name, if you re-read my post I did say "Different people will set up the line in a different order, and will set their markers in different places", and so I agree that where people sit within a group Is personal, but I did try to make the selection of who is in the group as impersonal as possible by using the words "if you could line up the world, past and present" and thereby including everyone.
By your own criteria, you are also making a comparison by saying that in your opinion they should not ever be considered in the same group.
The bottom line is I never introduced the name, I commented on another posters use (who also did not make any direct comparisons) and then merely used it in the same manner as the original poster, namely as a marker for the extremes of behavior. I can only assume therefore that your criticism of my using the name and not there's is due to the fact they are more supportive of MT than my anti-stance.
PS notice how I have carefully avoided repeating the name again in case anyone only reads that one word!
I am sure English people can make their own choice but the reality is that since the war,without the votes from Wales & Scotland we would never have had a Labour Government. In other words we would always have had Conservative Governments for over 60 years! You might think this is a good thing, I certainly dont as it leads to a dreadful compacency among voters in addition to having the same politics al the time. 60 years of looking after the better off at the expense of the poor seems unhealthy at best.
I take it you are against independence for Scotland so you can carry on looking after us.
People keep saying how great Thatcher made the country when her own children do not live here!
Here's something that it took me literally *years and years* to realise...
Because Thatcher & co dressed up in the Union Jack the Tories appeared to be the most patriotic party.
But the truth is that they do not give a monkeys about Britain! If production is more profitable abroad, it will be moved abroad. If a British worker can't be profitably employed he is no more use than a used condom and will be tossed aside.
The only time patriotism is wheeled out is when some war needs to be fought. Then 'we're all in it together'. (Having said that modern patriotism is quite muted compared to Thatcher's time, because these days it no longer matters if the population supports Britain's role as US sidekick - those wars will be fought anyway).
Does that mean that I am arguing for 'real patriotism'? Hell no! There are no 'national solutions' to international problems. The employers think in international terms and do not care about the nation. Why should we?
Here's something that it took me literally *years and years* to realise...
Because Thatcher & co dressed up in the Union Jack the Tories appeared to be the most patriotic party.
But the truth is that they do not give a monkeys about Britain! If production is more profitable abroad, it will be moved abroad. If a British worker can't be profitably employed he is no more use than a used condom and will be tossed aside.
The only time patriotism is wheeled out is when some war needs to be fought. Then 'we're all in it together'. (Having said that modern patriotism is quite muted compared to Thatcher's time, because these days it no longer matters if the population supports Britain's role as US sidekick - those wars will be fought anyway).
Does that mean that I am arguing for 'real patriotism'? Hell no! There are no 'national solutions' to international problems. The employers think in international terms and do not care about the nation. Why should we?
Here's something that it took me literally *years and years* to realise...
Because Thatcher & co dressed up in the Union Jack the Tories appeared to be the most patriotic party.
But the truth is that they do not give a monkeys about Britain! If production is more profitable abroad, it will be moved abroad. If a British worker can't be profitably employed he is no more use than a used condom and will be tossed aside.
The only time patriotism is wheeled out is when some war needs to be fought. Then 'we're all in it together'. (Having said that modern patriotism is quite muted compared to Thatcher's time, because these days it no longer matters if the population supports Britain's role as US sidekick - those wars will be fought anyway).
Does that mean that I am arguing for 'real patriotism'? Hell no! There are no 'national solutions' to international problems. The employers think in international terms and do not care about the nation. Why should we?
How long should a British worker be unprofitably employed before he's tossed aside? Do you boycott cinemas that got rid of their pianists? Do you never buy foreign goods if there is a British-made alternative? Why presume it's employers that started this "disloyalty"? Maybe it was their customers, and maybe they had good reason.
I am sure English people can make their own choice but the reality is that since the war,without the votes from Wales & Scotland we would never have had a Labour Government. In other words we would always have had Conservative Governments for over 60 years! You might think this is a good thing, I certainly dont as it leads to a dreadful compacency among voters in addition to having the same politics al the time. 60 years of looking after the better off at the expense of the poor seems unhealthy at best.
Can we please then not only let the scots have their independence but the welsh also? By your logic not only do we have the scots to blame for Gordon Brown but Blair as well ... Please please let the English vote on Scottish independence as that will allow us to take some revenge
Here's something that it took me literally *years and years* to realise...
Because Thatcher & co dressed up in the Union Jack the Tories appeared to be the most patriotic party.
But the truth is that they do not give a monkeys about Britain! If production is more profitable abroad, it will be moved abroad. If a British worker can't be profitably employed he is no more use than a used condom and will be tossed aside.
The only time patriotism is wheeled out is when some war needs to be fought. Then 'we're all in it together'. (Having said that modern patriotism is quite muted compared to Thatcher's time, because these days it no longer matters if the population supports Britain's role as US sidekick - those wars will be fought anyway).
Does that mean that I am arguing for 'real patriotism'? Hell no! There are no 'national solutions' to international problems. The employers think in international terms and do not care about the nation. Why should we?
So you think the Tories under Thatcher were really not patriotic. You clearly feel that patriotism is not for you. So your only argument is that Thatcher pretended to be patriotic. By the way, unless I have missed it, nobody has explained to me why the Poll Tax was such a device of the devil.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
