Thatcher

[Atilla]

funny how nobody wants to mention pre 1979. Look at Greece now and times it by ten!

Pre-1979 - was oil shock, wage-inflation and unemployment. Same stuff experienced by every other country in the world.

People I find only look at blaming unions for the failure of British manufacturing industry and think nothing of centuries of failed management and leadership. It's like the tail wagging the dog

Same old rewarding failure culture exists today. But wearing a donkey jacket with steel capped boots as opposed to wearing a jacket and tie, and talking with a silver spoon stuck up ones rear seems to make a big difference?

I don't know - perhaps it's only me who thinks our management and leadership are poor. Funny how nobody mentions that either? :idea:

 

[Liquid validity]

Pre-1979 - was oil shock, wage-inflation and unemployment. Same stuff experienced by every other country in the world.

True, that is a fair point.

People I find only look at blaming unions for the failure of British manufacturing industry and think nothing of centuries of failed management and leadership. It's like the tail wagging the dog

Same old rewarding failure culture exists today. But wearing a donkey jacket with steel capped boots as opposed to wearing a jacket and tie, and talking with a silver spoon stuck up ones rear seems to make a big difference?

No, the blame does not solely lie at the door of 70's unions.
They were however an undeniable obstacle to improving the situation
for everyone - yes there was collateral damage, there always is, its unavoidable.

I'll admit you do have a point regarding the reward of failure.
It would be nothing short of bias to say otherwise.
The poor have always been f**ked over by the rich, and always will be.
That is the reality of life.

The opportunity does exist for those willing to sacrifice and make the effort
to climb out of poverty.
Is it easy - no, certainly not.
Is that option available to everyone - its a harsh truth, but the answer is no.

It is however better than the alternatives offered by socialism or communism
which offer less opportunity for everyone, except those that hold power.
Socialism restricts due to less opportunity.
Communism restricts due to removing opportunity altogether.

The world ain't perfect, but I know which option I choose hands down.
Capitalism, or even the pseudo capitalism we have today, is most
closely aligned with human nature, which is why it works better
than the alternatives.

 

[counter_violent]

True, that is a fair point.


No, the blame does not solely lie at the door of 70's unions.
They were however an undeniable obstacle to improving the situation
for everyone - yes there was collateral damage, there always is, its unavoidable.

I'll admit you do have a point regarding the reward of failure.
It would be nothing short of bias to say otherwise.
The poor have always been f**ked over by the rich, and always will be.
That is the reality of life.

The opportunity does exist for those willing to sacrifice and make the effort
to climb out of poverty.
Is it easy - no, certainly not.
Is that option available to everyone - its a harsh truth, but the answer is no.

It is however better than the alternatives offered by socialism or communism
which offer less opportunity for everyone, except those that hold power.
Socialism restricts due to less opportunity.
Communism restricts due to removing opportunity altogether.

The world ain't perfect, but I know which option I choose hands down.
Capitalism, or even the pseudo capitalism we have today, is most
closely aligned with human nature, which is why it works better
than the alternatives.

Margaret Thatcher - "They'd rather have the poor poorer." - YouTube

 

[Mr. Charts]

Individualism is largely considered to be bad.

Considered by whom?

Hitler?
Stalin?
Pol Pot?
Kim Jong Un?

 

[counter_violent]

Considered by whom?

Hitler?
Stalin?
Pol Pot?
Kim Jong Un?

Atilla?

 

[Splitlink]

I'm trying not to get into this argument-----I like Atilla!

One thing's for sure, you can't make an omelete without breaking eggs. The woman got elected three times. She must have been getting something right.

 

[counter_violent]

I'm trying not to get into this argument-----I like Atilla!

So do I. I'm just trying to get his mind right.

One thing's for sure, you can't make an omelete without breaking eggs. The woman got elected three times. She must have been getting something right.

And she was hot...some blokes like a powerful woman...more of a challenge than your average bimbo.

 

[Mr. Charts]

Atilla?

I did think of including Atilla in the list but suspected it might reinforce his sense of being the downtrodden deprived victim of capitalist fascist hyena running dogs
as his beloved Mao Tse Zong used to say

Seriously, Comrade Atilla, I too have always liked you and I'm not sure anymore whether you've just lost your marbles, been taken over by aliens or are on a massive wind up
No offence intended, Comrade !

 

[Shakone]

I'm trying not to get into this argument-----I like Atilla!

One thing's for sure, you can't make an omelete without breaking eggs. The woman got elected three times. She must have been getting something right.

Well the something she was getting right could just be getting voted in. Doesn't really say much about anything else. The characteristics people look for in a leader, do not necessarily have anything to do with how well they will do or have done while leading.

It also depends greatly on the options. In a choice between two poor candidates (which is pretty much every UK election I can remember) what can one conclude from one winning? That they are less bad than the others? Half the population refuses to even choose nowadays.

I respect the fact that she was a hard worker, and that she was a strong decision maker. I think it's shameful that people are partying at someone's death. She was though just a politician, a divisive one, for which people debate whether she was beneficial or not, with no great vision or intelligence. I fail to see any greatness there.

 

[Atilla]

Margaret Thatcher - "They'd rather have the poor poorer." - YouTube

OMG - some people are so stupid and talk clever.

She totally misses the point and then rambles on a load of rubbish. How typical of the woman. To anyone with any ounce of decency one should question the points being made and attempt to answer them.

I've made up the numbers but it is about as accurate as her fingered gestures.

Difference between Executive Management v Labourers.


In fact some layers of management and executives can earn 500 to 1000 times more than the lowest.

Average wage statistics is also very much skewed by top earners.

One has to ASK the question are these new levels of management and bank executives (previously retail with no financial experience - as int the case of some RBS execs) really worth their salaries.

Do salaries reflect productivity or share price or asset growth?

Would our politicians earn more in the private sector as they are able to off the public purse.


I would say clearly NOT!


Some people believe the more people earn the harder they work? Clearly NOT! Otherwise our industries with these salaries would be the best in the world. Chinese and Indians work damn site harder and earn considerably less.


This kind of tosh really really gets up my nose but hey if some people want to feel good about damn lies and daft statistics go ahead and do so. Changes nothing on the ground.

In fact importing labour and depressing wages of the low paid is a deliberate policy to dampen wage inflation againgst rising fuel and food bills. Coupled with rental and reduced housing stock with increasing numbers.

But the lady gets some repu for pointing out that some people earn more? I wonder how much more in real money low paid workers earn compared to management class who don't really pull their weight at all in this country imho.


This is critical self reflection upon us all. You judge. Do you think our management and executives are worth their bonuses.

Please don't bring capitalism and perfect price competition as that too is a load of tosh. It's hand shakes behind closed doors in case you didn't know that already.

 

[Splitlink]

Well the something she was getting right could just be getting voted in. Doesn't really say much about anything else. The characteristics people look for in a leader, do not necessarily have anything to do with how well they will do or have done while leading.

It also depends greatly on the options. In a choice between two poor candidates (which is pretty much every UK election I can remember) what can one conclude from one winning? That they are less bad than the others? Half the population refuses to even choose nowadays.

I respect the fact that she was a hard worker, and that she was a strong decision maker. I think it's shameful that people are partying at someone's death. She was though just a politician, a divisive one, for which people debate whether she was beneficial or not, with no great vision or intelligence. I fail to see any greatness there.

In three elections, were there, really, no other choices? I find that very difficult to believe.

From what I remember of her, from this side of the channel, she came at a time when most voters were, absolutely, fed up with the unions. That is how she got in. Most of those union members were employed in public industries and paid for by the taxpayer and most people went along with her privatisation policies.

For right or wrong, She is a part of British history and it is the UK who is honouring her. She is dead and, probably, does not give a damn what people think of her, anymore than she did when she was alive.

 

[Atilla]

And she was hot...some blokes like a powerful woman...more of a challenge than your average bimbo.

Yeah right. That's like jerking off. Having to pay for it! You know that's not the real deal right!

She hated anyone standing up to her views... Any examples of where she compromised???

Pol tax perhaps - despite the recommendations of her full cabinet. Took the riots to compromise her.



Also Mr Charts, feel free to add Atilla to that list. Really don't mind the banter guys it's all tongue and cheek with me. Best let out don't brew it inside


You need to know Atilla came from humble beginnings, united tribes and took on the biggest powers of the land.

He was not a barbarian - it's simply that when commanders 'conquer' and loot bounty for her majesty it is called VICTORY. When it is another alien force it is called INVASION and plunder.

In fact many other tribes joined Atilla's army as they marched West because their life styles weren't much cop under existing rule anyhow (back in those ages). They only took what they needed and they travelled light. Unlike the Romans they did not decimate villages to teach locals a lesson. People joined of free will too not coercion.

Atilla was one of the greatest leaders of history. He also didn't give much heed to bloodline but more ability and skill and rewarded his men for achieving results.


I don't understand your question however, so not able to answer it.


If I may also make another point - saying Thatcher built the UK is like saying Atilla built Venice.

Romans ran to the marshes because Atilla's horseman could not attack them there. Hence, Venice flourished.

Thatcher pretty much devided the UK (as evidence by depth of feeling even now) and then people being robust and bulldog spirit tried to recover and survive rebuilding what they had left as best they could. To attribute success to her is pure politics, vanity and hype.

Not my idea of a great leader at all. But each to their own.

 

[Atilla]

In three elections, were there, really, no other choices? I find that very difficult to believe.

From what I remember of her, from this side of the channel, she came at a time when most voters were, absolutely, fed up with the unions. That is how she got in. Most of those union members were employed in public industries and paid for by the taxpayer and most people went along with her privatisation policies.

For right or wrong, She is a part of British history and it is the UK who is honouring her. She is dead and, probably, does not give a damn what people think of her, anymore than she did when she was alive.

Thank you for your kind words Splitlink, and my words are in the interest of our nation like everyone else's here.

Reforming the unions was an absolute necessity yes. I recall RangeRover exports been held up by tyre makers walking out with the daft closed shop rule. All the middle-east buyers wanting to get their hands on new model competing with the likes of Toyota but being told - "erm sorry sir, your brand new spanking £80K rover is awaiting tyres to be put on". So customer tries Toyota and forgets about his RangeRover.

I studied her privatisation v nationalisation; pros and con policies at the time and the big question was as I have said many a times to do with what is a natural monopoly and can / could it be privatised.

1. Can a petrol station sell multiple brands of petrol? No not really. Just doesn't make sense as one would need increased delivery of tankers to cover all stations. So we have different brand petrol stations and tankers delivering to one.

2. Alternatively, can a supermarket sell different cans of beans. Yes absolutely. No problem there then.

3. Re: gas / elecricity / water and rail - due to high infrastucture costs - same as petrol stations, would have high delivery costs in laying multiple pipelines/feeds etc. So not really ripe for privatisation. Where is the competition?

We license the infrastructure and let the private supplier companies pay fees which they then recoup from customers. BUT is this an efficient supply/production solution to a natural monopoly. Let the people decide paying exorbitant utility bills - irrespective of profits made by these companies.

Moreover, with few operators, why should these companies compete on price. Interest is to match competitors on price and compete on product differentiation.

That these days effectively boils down to literally 100s of different tariffs = product brand differentiation on what they can offer you. Mind boggling absolute ingenious theft.

Whilst at the door they will calculate the cheapest tariff to pull you in. To top it off households are usually put on the most expensive bill.

Where is regulation and watchdog watching consumer interest???

Also - selling national jewels cheap and paying off debt. Bribing the electorate. Master stroke of politics but even if the outcome was not intended - Government should address failing system.



Anyhow, few people really understand economics and even amongts those who do very difficult to reach agreement based on interest and the invisible hand.

I too will be leaving the UK soon. Planning the great escape is one of my hobbies right now after hugging trees and cycling.

 

[counter_violent]

wow wow just wow looks like someone has their panties in a right ol twist.

 

[Liquid validity]

Thatcher pretty much devided the UK (as evidence by depth of feeling even now) and then people being robust and bulldog spirit tried to recover and survive rebuilding what they had left as best they could. To attribute success to her is pure politics, vanity and hype.

Not my idea of a great leader at all. But each to their own.

That is a fair and undeniable point.
I even said she was a divisive figure in my first post on this thread.
Now tell me what your solution would have been to the 3 day week,
no electricity and no bread, I'd really love to hear it.
From where I'm standing, the only solution was inherently divisive.

Are you seriously suggesting that allowing unions to constantly strike,
British Leyland striking over 5 mins less tea break that was not even a
legal requirement was realistic and should have gone unchecked?

Answer me one question:
Do you believe socialism or communism is better than capitalism.
If so, cite a successful example of the model.

Regarding your earlier post, yes the gap between rich and poor
has widened.
That was never the issue.
The issue was and still is - if the gap narrows, the rich hold onto more of their
wealth, less flows downhill in the form of wages, workers revolt and we end up
with the U.S.S.R.
Fantastic...

I really am confused here, someone who trades, invests in property,
yet apparently supports an economic model that would destroy and remove
much of that.
If that assumption is wrong, please enlighten me

 

[Shakone]

In three elections, were there, really, no other choices? I find that very difficult to believe.

From what I remember of her, from this side of the channel, she came at a time when most voters were, absolutely, fed up with the unions. That is how she got in. Most of those union members were employed in public industries and paid for by the taxpayer and most people went along with her privatisation policies.

For right or wrong, She is a part of British history and it is the UK who is honouring her. She is dead and, probably, does not give a damn what people think of her, anymore than she did when she was alive.

There are always choices, just not necessarily good ones.

Getting voted in is about an election campaign, often based on various forms of deceit, and pinning your policies to a large enough demographic that you then hope will elect you. Thatcher obviously did better than her competitors at that because she was elected 3 times. My point was that this has nothing to do with how well you govern or lead once you're in - two completely different things to me.

 

[Atilla]

That is a fair and undeniable point.
I even said she was a divisive figure in my first post on this thread.
Now tell me what your solution would have been to the 3 day week,
no electricity and no bread, I'd really love to hear it.
From where I'm standing, the only solution was inherently divisive.

Are you seriously suggesting that allowing unions to constantly strike,
British Leyland striking over 5 mins less tea break that was not even a
legal requirement was realistic and should have gone unchecked?

Unions had to be dealt with. Undeniably so. Never said otherwise.

Answer me one question:
Do you believe socialism or communism is better than capitalism.
If so, cite a successful example of the model.

I do not believe in either communism or capitalism. I also don't like to be pigeon hole based on other peoples definitions. I do believe we need some level of social protection. I currently also support Iain Duncan Smith in his reforms with the provision some common sense is applied.
eg: I support the NHS and prepared to pay more tax. However, we need some form of quota on how much is free. Do not believe in unlimited cover.
eg: I support Unemployment Benefit payouts but with limitations on duration
eg: We've lost out on the child benefit withdrawal (Mrs lady of leisure with two children) but I support the withdrawal despite losing £1.7K as don't need it.
eg: I support means tested university grants. I received such full grant and would not be here discussing these issues otherwise.
eg: I voted Liberal and prepared to pay higher tax for better social services
eg: I would support re-nationalisation of the railways and public utilities
eg:

Regarding your earlier post, yes the gap between rich and poor
has widened.
That was never the issue. No but she fails to understands the point question raises and rambles on talking rubbish.

I believe in not equality but equity and in efficiency. I'm an economist. Not a politician.

EQUALITY = Equal people should be treated equally. Unequal people should be treated Unequally.

EQUITY = Fairness. A cleaner in a bank contributes just as much as an executive. I fail to see why an executive gets £2m + 33% bonus, whilst cleaner gets £15K + 5% bonus.

EFFICIENCY = If tax on interest from savings brings in £50m and costs £50m it is not efficient and should be scrapped.


The issue was and still is - if the gap narrows, the rich hold onto more of their
wealth, less flows downhill in the form of wages, workers revolt and we end up
with the U.S.S.R.
Fantastic...


Don't understand your point here. If income is distributed more equitably expenditure rises. People become educated and just as creative. I don't by into CV's model of keeping people dumb because we need them to clean our toilets. I think we should pay people doing tough jobs more money to induce them into tough industries. ie metal workers, engineering and toilet cleaners. Toilets where one has to pay 30p to get in are always so much more cleaner than free ones - don't you think?


I really am confused here, someone who trades, invests in property,
yet apparently supports an economic model that would destroy and remove
much of that.
If that assumption is wrong, please enlighten me

Look here chums - I've never said I was red. Never said I'm blue. I've voted for all three parties in the past. Call me a floater.

Regarding unions and say for example British Leyland - I see two issues. Productivity and Market Share. I go by Japanese experience in case study.

They invested in R&D and latest production methods. They studied what Americans did and how. They replicated, copied and improved.

I would look at the German model for industrial relations. I would replicate, copy them and improve.

CV's idea of shared ownership of cooperatives is a good one. Not beyoned management to introduce such a compromise.

Here is one suggestion.

1. Give in to the strikers and pay them inflation matching wage as this is only fair. Bring them into the boardroom along with engineers to participate in direction and decision making. Stipulate future wage increase, employment numbers based on new model sales.
- Communicate change
- Get buy in and endorsement
- Provide carrot and show stick
2. Give management objectives and the sack if targets not met. Not the labourers.
- Management and leaders lead. Workers follow. Accountability at the top.
3. Invest in new models and engines as the Japanese have done.
- Motivate labourers with training and communication strategy for the company coupled with
- Showing them the accounts and how bad situ is.
4. Invest in people and they will reward you back.


A study was done on a factory once and results were as follows.

A. Study labour productivity - observe results and benchmark
B. Replace furniture with new; desks and chairs. Turn lighting up => productivity goes up.

Then they reversed the test;

C. Maintain old furniture; turn lighting down and move workers into more restrictive space => productivity went up still, even more.

Study had real difficulty. Could not explain what was going on! Any answers ideas?

They questioned staff - what came about was unexpected.

The WORKERS felt special that so much interest was being taken in their work and they felt important. Ahhh bless them all - isn't that sweet


Social habbits and responses difficult to teach or embrace but we are well behind in system and approach to a lot of things here in the UK.

As I have said - to me problem lies at the top not the bottom. Honesty, integrity and accountability are hard to find these days.

Smug, stuck up and pure personal interest is what is peddled with poor outcome.

I like the Muskeeters motto. One for all and all for one. We need to work as a team. Not as individuals. Together we are stronger, better and happier.

It is a frame of mind. It is one society. One goal. One body. One nation united in a common belief to try ones best always.

We need leadership that cares for us. Not one that whips us and tells us it is for our own bloody good.


Vote for me and I'll show you how it should be done.

 

[counter_violent]

Yeah right. That's like jerking off. Having to pay for it! You know that's not the real deal right!

She hated anyone standing up to her views... Any examples of where she compromised???

Pol tax perhaps - despite the recommendations of her full cabinet. Took the riots to compromise her.



Also Mr Charts, feel free to add Atilla to that list. Really don't mind the banter guys it's all tongue and cheek with me. Best let out don't brew it inside


You need to know Atilla came from humble beginnings, united tribes and took on the biggest powers of the land.

He was not a barbarian - it's simply that when commanders 'conquer' and loot bounty for her majesty it is called VICTORY. When it is another alien force it is called INVASION and plunder.

In fact many other tribes joined Atilla's army as they marched West because their life styles weren't much cop under existing rule anyhow (back in those ages). They only took what they needed and they travelled light. Unlike the Romans they did not decimate villages to teach locals a lesson. People joined of free will too not coercion.

Now lets take this bit and apply it to tax collection.
People would be quite happy paying taxes if only they weren't so dammed high and wasted by govt on the other side. People have big issues paying lots of taxes. Do you think this may be because they would spend that money differently, in other words, they don't agree with how it is being spent/wasted on their behalf.
Could I spend your money in a better way than you could?

Atilla was one of the greatest leaders of history. He also didn't give much heed to bloodline but more ability and skill and rewarded his men for achieving results.

When Mags got in she set about reducing punishing tax rates both for individuals and business. (I'll take your word on Atilla rewarded his men). There is no difference then between Atilla and Mags, she decided to reward work by reducing tax? Investment inflow of money did take some time, but considering what she inherited, it was a remarkable acheivement.

I don't understand your question however, so not able to answer it.


If I may also make another point - saying Thatcher built the UK is like saying Atilla built Venice.

Thatcher was the enabler, she put in place a framework and the people did the rest. Undeniable. (Freidman)

Romans ran to the marshes because Atilla's horseman could not attack them there. Hence, Venice flourished.

Thatcher pretty much devided the UK (as evidence by depth of feeling even now) and then people being robust and bulldog spirit tried to recover and survive rebuilding what they had left as best they could. To attribute success to her is pure politics, vanity and hype.

Not my idea of a great leader at all. But each to their own.

Maggie Maggie Maggie oi oi oi
:clap::clap::clap:

 

[Liquid validity]

The issue that I raised that you have skirted around was that
of p1ss taking UK unions in the 70's.
I don't think unions are by definition harmful - they are much stronger
in Australia for instance, but then again, they have never taken the p1ss.
That is what happened in the UK, so the only option to sort
out the problem was to remove the power they had.

Yes you agree that they had to be dealt with, but you don't agree with
how Thatcher did it.
The softly softly, involvement approach had been tried, they abused it.

A large proportion of the strong and mixed opinion with Thatcher does
centre around the handling of the union issue.

1. Give in to the strikers and pay them inflation matching wage as this is only fair. Bring them into the boardroom along with engineers to participate in direction and decision making. Stipulate future wage increase, employment numbers based on new model sales.

So, from the quote above, employment numbers are based on revenue.
Yet inflation matching pay is a given regardless of revenue.
You don't see a paradox there?
That means joblosses as revenue can not support the payroll.

In recent years, Ford UK plants have gone at times to 4 day week
(i.e. pay cut to preserve skill base and jobs).
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/fords-four-day-week
The exact inverse of your suggestion.

Which also points, not only to your incorrect conclusions,
it also shows that Thatchers approach of castrating the unions
by force was the only option.
They brought it on themselves by being unrealistic given the economic conditions.
The current Ford example shows how they should have acted back then.

I like the Muskeeters motto. One for all and all for one. We need to work as a team. Not as individuals. Together we are stronger, better and happier.

It is a frame of mind. It is one society. One goal. One body. One nation united in a common belief to try ones best always.

I fail to see how that is any different than theoretical communism.

 

[counter_violent]

I too will be leaving the UK soon. Planning the great escape is one of my hobbies right now after hugging trees and cycling.

It's perhaps as well, there will be less trees to hug soon.

I am determined to take matters into my own hands and counter energy price rises by installing a wood burner. Not only that, but the council (who charge me handsomely for disposal and I get nothing in return) will no longer benefit from my paper and card re-cycling as I fully intend pulping it, mixing with wood chips and turning it into more fuel in the form of briquettes.

If anyone has any ideas for glass and tin cans, let me know