Margaret Thatcher is dead - Monday 8th April 2013

hop said:

The poorest section of society is very well looked after in the uk. Try going to a third world country and see the difference.
Visit the USA and see how the poor live over there.
When you see the poor in the prosperous US roaming the streets with their eyes focused on the gutter looking for Aluminum cans which they can collect and weight in for scrap you will realise how we'll the poor in the UK are.

Did thr last labour party help the poor ? By taxing dividends they stole from every private sector workers pension pot. Is that a kindly benevolent government or one who was deceitful and chose to impose tax rises in ways which the averagely on the street would never understand.

Tax credits. Where they to help the poor ? No just a way of makin foolish people believe feel more dependant on the state. Why take with one hand and give back with the other ?

Click to expand...

I think you got confused

Confused between Daily Mail benefit headlines, and those who are chronically ill and in need of constant help and who now have been hit harder by new Conservative/Liberal legislation.

Just as the banksters swallow our taxes in the form of yet more 'bail outs' with zero legislation to prevent yet another collapse of these casino/banks, five years after the last/current scandal

I hope you never get that ill by the way

Re your additional rant - see cartoon above

Of course we are all culpable - instead of ripping down Parliament in disgust we ( I ) write a letter - then moan election after election that nothing has changed


If anyone has the spare rail fare for a Parliament ripping down session, see me after school

Right, you can all go now

No running in the corridor

hop said:

The poorest section of society is very well looked after in the uk.

Click to expand...

Really? Then why has there been a massive growth in Foodbanks in the past couple of years?

"In 2011-12 foodbanks fed 128,687 people nationwide, in 2012-13 we anticipate this number will rise to over 290,000" The Trussell Trust

hop said:

Try going to a third world country and see the difference.

Click to expand...

Of course there is a difference, that's why it's a third world country.

Poverty is relative to the society that we live in.

hop said:

Visit the USA and see how the poor live over there.
When you see the poor in the prosperous US roaming the streets with their eyes focused on the gutter looking for Aluminum cans which they can collect and weight in for scrap you will realise how we'll the poor in the UK are.

Click to expand...

The USA should be ashamed of themselves for the poverty they allow to exist in their society.

Thatcher followed the advice of Mr Milton Friedman, her American economic Guru and would have seen little wrong with this.

It's unfettered free market capitalism and hopefully not a vision of the future instore for us.

hop said:

Did thr last labour party help the poor ? By taxing dividends they stole from every private sector workers pension pot. Is that a kindly benevolent government or one who was deceitful and chose to impose tax rises in ways which the averagely on the street would never understand.

Click to expand...

Tax has to be paid, without it we could not survive. Is taxing dividends worse than doubling VAT? I don't think so.

hop said:

Tax credits. Where they to help the poor ? No just a way of makin foolish people believe feel more dependant on the state. Why take with one hand and give back with the other ?

Click to expand...

I remember the introduction of working family tax credit and it allowed me to offset the cost of childcare for my two young children and return to work full time after several years of caring for them.

It never made me dependant on the state and was one of the best policies ever introduced by the Labour government.

Living hand to mouth is a difficult and stressful thing to do and it's what "The poorest section of society" do on a daily basis, if they were "well looked after" we would not have foodbanks, the exponential growth in charities (and charity shops) over the past 40 years and rioting across the country not so long ago.

The cuts that are being made today are ones that Thatcher could only have dreamed of, the (Labour) government bailed out the financial crisis with public money, the alternative of letting the invisible hand of the free market guide us to a solution was too scary for all and now the Tories are now seeking to rob the poor to pay for it.

The death of Maggie Thatcher was always going to lead to a mixture of emotions and reflections on her Premiership
My emotion is Sadness. Sadness that we have suffered so many missed oppotunities during and after her time as PM.
I was dead against most of what she done at the time but now realise some of the logic behind her actions. Alot of our traditional industries were on it's last legs, losing money with poor management and intrangedent Unions. I wonder how many of the industries that went to the wall could have been turned round.
It was the lack of a long term alternative that cost this country so dearly. Hardly any new technogly industries were set up(north of Birmingham anyway) and the boom in retail space was a poor substitute for modern industries that could have made the UK on par with Germany, USA, Japan etc.
What happened in the Eighties was that there was a surge in welfare dependency whether it be unemployment/disability benefits. Sadly sucsessive governments have failed to tackle welfare dependency. Indeed it was Tony Blair who promised 'a hand up, not a handout' that failed the poor the most. During his time as PM welfare dependency risen and opening the borders to Eastern Europeans haven't help matters because they are in direct competition with people trying to get on the first few rungs of the work ladder such as cleaners, warehouse and factory jobs.

andy w said:

"What happened in the Eighties was that there was a surge in welfare dependency whether it be unemployment/disability benefits."

Click to expand...

It did not just happen - Thatcher made it so

She was offering people their homes at a cut price. But she didn't build any houses

She created today's housing crisis, she produced the banking crisis, she created the benefits crisis. It was her government that started putting people on incapacity benefits rather than register them as unemployed because the Britain she inherited was broadly at full employment.

She decided when she wrote off our manufacturing industry that she could live with two or three million unemployed and the legacy of that, the benefits bill that we are still struggling with today.

In actual fact, every real problem we face today is the legacy of the fact she was fundamentally wrong

John Marwood said:

andy w said:

"What happened in the Eighties was that there was a surge in welfare dependency whether it be unemployment/disability benefits."

Click to expand...

It did not just happen - Thatcher made it so

She was offering people their homes at a cut price. But she didn't build any houses

She created today's housing crisis, she produced the banking crisis, she created the benefits crisis. It was her government that started putting people on incapacity benefits rather than register them as unemployed because the Britain she inherited was broadly at full employment.

She decided when she wrote off our manufacturing industry that she could live with two or three million unemployed and the legacy of that, the benefits bill that we are still struggling with today.

In actual fact, every real problem we face today is the legacy of the fact she was fundamentally wrong

Click to expand...

But don't you think 23 years is long enough to tackle these problems, with Labour being in power 13 of those years.
Isn't it a bit of a cop out to blame all the problems of this country on one woman

andy w said:

But don't you think 23 years is long enough to tackle these problems, with Labour being in power 13 of those years.
Isn't it a bit of a cop out to blame all the problems of this country on one woman

Click to expand...

Yes New Labour were in for 13 years but they were never really Labour which is why there was no significant change.

For your views on welfare dependency, I suggest you read this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/11/strivers-v-skivers-divisive-notion

Her policies seem to have directly caused a lot of it. Housing costs nowadays for benefits claimants cost a lot, according to the first random article I googled 3 years ago it hit 3bn. The severe lack of state housing plus the housing shortage overall driving up prices is the main culprit, benefits claimants in private rental accommodation. Thatchers great sell off of the housing stock was no greater a crime than Gordon Browns visit to cash4gold, they both robbed the country of a valuable asset. The main difference is we can now see the legacy of Thatchers mistake, we can't yet judge Browns due to the clusterf**k that is the banking sector.

andy w said:

But don't you think 23 years is long enough to tackle these problems, with Labour being in power 13 of those years.
Isn't it a bit of a cop out to blame all the problems of this country on one woman

Click to expand...

I think we have been shafted by every single Government since Thatcher - but never more so than by Thatcher

And while we are at it - Be aware that the bankster crisis of 2008 will seem like a little till pilfering when the next one comes along.

The consequences will change your life and mine, for ever

John Marwood said:

Just as the banksters swallow our taxes in the form of yet more 'bail outs' with zero legislation to prevent yet another collapse of these casino/banks, five years after the last/current scandal

Click to expand...

I take it you are fimilar with financial services and the requirements for statutory reporting.
I wouldn't say there has been no action. Basel 3, Dodd Frank and IPV are placing a great deal of legislation around investment banking and the derivatives markets.

The fact this isn't reported in the media is perhaps because they spend time trying to bash the banking industry.

The problems within the UK banking sector were caused predominantly by retail banks the only real reckless investment banking arm being RBS and their downfall was due to bad due diligence and paying far too much to buy ABN Amro.

Lloyds was a strong bank who took little risk. Their downfall was helping out Gordon Brown and agreeing to buy HBOS (mostly retail - the purchase of the treasury area Bank and Scotland a traditional and strong bank being done with leveraged finance).

If you want to punish the bankers perhaps look at the legislative regime setup by Gordon Brown who created the FSA rather than leave the bank of England in charge.

How many people insult derivatives but fail to realise that without the advent of of CBOT (Chicago board of trade) and LIFFE (London international financial futures and options exchange) they wouldn't have things such as fixed rate mortgages. Farmers wouldn't be able to hedge against poor weather such as the past few years.
Some products have both positives and negatives yet the media fail to understand the positives.

hop said:

I take it you are fimilar with financial services and the requirements for statutory reporting.
I wouldn't say there has been no action. Basel 3, Dodd Frank and IPV are placing a great deal of legislation around investment banking and the derivatives markets.

The fact this isn't reported in the media is perhaps because they spend time trying to bash the banking industry.

The problems within the UK banking sector were caused predominantly by retail banks the only real reckless investment banking arm being RBS and their downfall was due to bad due diligence and paying far too much to buy ABN Amro.

Lloyds was a strong bank who took little risk. Their downfall was helping out Gordon Brown and agreeing to buy HBOS (mostly retail - the purchase of the treasury area Bank and Scotland a traditional and strong bank being done with leveraged finance).

If you want to punish the bankers perhaps look at the legislative regime setup by Gordon Brown who created the FSA rather than leave the bank of England in charge.

How many people insult derivatives but fail to realise that without the advent of of CBOT (Chicago board of trade) and LIFFE (London international financial futures and options exchange) they wouldn't have things such as fixed rate mortgages. Farmers wouldn't be able to hedge against poor weather such as the past few years.
Some products have both positives and negatives yet the media fail to understand the positives.

Click to expand...

I think you would have to call a fool anyone who trusted their money with any bank today

When the collapse comes there will be no £85k guarentee for the life savers as per Government propaganda, no bail out for individuals and higher taxes for all who bother to pay them

John Marwood said:

I think you would have to call a fool anyone who trusted their money with any bank today

When the collapse comes there will be no £85k guarentee for the life savers as per Government propaganda, no bail out for individuals and higher taxes for all who bother to pay them

Click to expand...

Very few have 85k in cash and those that do are foolish they should invest In stocks and bonds.

Often the less you have, the more it is to lose. If someone amassed 85k in savings I'd expect them to have collateral too, big house, nice car etc. If you only have 5k and you lose it then it will more likely see you lose your house. If 85k was secured then the majority of the country wouldn't care, but is it?

hop said:

Very few have 85k in cash and those that do are foolish they should invest In stocks and bonds.

Click to expand...

I'm not too sure about that, many pensioners have built up large deposits(savings, inheritence etc) and have the interest to bolster their pensions.
As for stocks and shares, ask the ex bank employees who built up substansial amounts of shares in their 'safe as houses' banks through SAYE schemes and then see their value collapse.

andy w said:

I'm not too sure about that, many pensioners have built up large deposits(savings, inheritence etc) and have the interest to bolster their pensions.
As for stocks and shares, ask the ex bank employees who built up substansial amounts of shares in their 'safe as houses' banks through SAYE schemes and then see their value collapse.

Click to expand...

Your confusing equity with cash. Most people invest spare money not leave it liquid.
SAYE is your choice you get a discount to begin with and you often buy over a period of time. Many people in banking have benefitted even in the past few years

John Marwood said:

It did not just happen - Thatcher made it so

1) She was offering people their homes at a cut price. But she didn't build any houses

2) She created today's housing crisis, she produced the banking crisis, she created the benefits crisis. It was her government that started putting people on incapacity benefits rather than register them as unemployed because the Britain she inherited was broadly at full employment.

3) She decided when she wrote off our manufacturing industry that she could live with two or three million unemployed and the legacy of that, the benefits bill that we are still struggling with today.

4) In actual fact, every real problem we face today is the legacy of the fact she was fundamentally wrong

Click to expand...

Its funny isn't it how people like to re-write history. Mrs Thatcher is of course just a convienient point for abuse to those on the left or those with rose tinted specs who would have you believe that everything was hunky dory in good old blightly when she took office in 1979 and everything that she did she did out of hatred and spite - what a load of twaddle. Trying reading some history about the state of Britain in the 1970's.

1) Yes she sold Council housing stock. She gave the opportunity for poor people to actually own a stake in society and have a chance to pass something onto their kids. Prior to this the traditional working class passed on nothing more than a second hand sofa and perhaps an old clock to their offspring when they died. She did more to help with social mobility and social wealth redistribution than any Government since. The fact that replacement houses were not built at the rate they should have been is not entirely down to her. Many local authorities wouldn't realise cash or land to make it happen. Incidentially this GOT WORSE under the Nu Labour years thanks to their housing price bubble.

2) In terms of the banking crisis the biggest mistake in this can be tracked back to Gordon Brown's decision to take away regulatory responsibility from the Bank of England and give it to the completely useless FSA. To say she alone caused a banking crisis is incorrect.

3) She did not write off manufacturing industry it wrote itself off through stupid Union militancy and complete inept management. This was not Mrs Thatcher's fault. All she said was that we couldn't continue propping up marxist, failing industries with money that we didn't have. Indeed these days if you ask many miners they say that Arthur Scargill was every bit as culpable for the collapse of their industry as Thatcher was. In terms of incapacity benefit a good number of people displaced from these crumbling industries were actually in ill health - coal miners for example were often in a wretched state. She recognised that they would in all likelihood be unable to retrain or work in other jobs hence incapacity was more appropriate then the dole. Again the fact that this has been left largely unreformed cannot be blamed entirely on her.

4) I'm no Tory but to blame EVERY problem that we face today on Margaret Thatcher is frankly absurd

She stole my milk!

According to the Daily Telegraph Millwall supporters have warned anti- Thatcher demonstraters they will be about around london after their FA Cup semi final.
I'm sure their boys(and girls believe it or not) aren't that fussy who they have a ruck with, but couldn't help seeing the link with Margerat Thatcher and Millwall.......'No one like's us, We don't care'

Judging by these headlines the next few days proceedings will be much like last years forcasted summer
An expensive non event

Alan B'Stard said:

Yes New Labour were in for 13 years but they were never really Labour

Click to expand...

Why do you think that is? Why do you think Labour elected Blair as their leader?

Because they'd got used to living it up at the taxpayers expense and wanted a pm that would allow it to continue? Or maybe they'd spent so long in opposition they'd forgotten how to make decisions and just copied what they knew?