Observer plug for Accy Web.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by cashman

the silence is deafening maybe cos its indefensible.

I've had a pm from Jaysay who doesn't want to go public with some of the things I accused him off, and that's certainly his right, and I understand better what he meant.

I'm still angry that he thinks some of the comments made about Peter Britcliffe on Accy Web were 'vile', and would still like to see one quoted by him so we could discuss it.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by Mancie

I'm sure it was a joke for Maggie, Cecil, Norman,and all the cabinet at the time.. but no joke for the 3 and half million people put on the dole.. some of us do remember Cfyr.. aint your dad told you?

I didn't realise you were refering to then.

I was only a baby during the late Thatcher years and Major, but I have read about the years quite a lot, both from biased (both sides) and unbiased points of view.
Yes, the way Thatcher went about things made many people unemployed, but the previous socialist government had wrecked the economy, was keeping millions of people in work when there was no profit to be made. How are you supposed to sustain millions of workers who are a burden on your ecnonomy because your throwing money at them when you could get coal etc cheaper elsewhere?
If it wasn't for Thatcher we wouldnt be where we are now I personaly believe. Industry has declined around the globe never mind just the UK. The service sector has boomed since the 1980's and nobody can say that a heck of a lot of us are better off because of the Thatcher years and Blair years who thank god ensured that we proberbly won't have another socialist government again, I'm pleased he didn't do a U-turn on Thatcherism.

Now I give her a lot of praise, but of course she did stupid things. By the end of her term she introduced the poll tax, which I completly don't agree with. It's enevitable that people will be richer than others, and theres no reason why the poorer people have to suffer, we all have the same rights regardless of income. Richer people should have to pay more money, it's not that they won't miss the money, they will just suffer a LOT less than taking it from poorer people, common sense .

At the end of the day, our move out of industry had to happen.

Norman Lamont was nothing more than a victem of time. You should really blame Goldman Sachs for the black wednesday affair

[g jones]

Originally Posted by Cyfr

I could agree with this normaly BUT in the case of 2006 local elections the national labour party held serious 'punch and judy' campagins such as Dave the Cameleon... Local elections should be about local issues, labour were the ones bringing national party leaders in to it... they proberbly would have done better if they had left that alone.

At what point did the local Labour Party bring in national issues?

[andrewb]

I never said they did. The national party brought in national issues, in the days coming up to the local elections. I know the local Labour Party fight local issues, but you can't blame people for listening to the national Labour party, since they're the same party, and it was done to try and stop people voting Conservative in the local elections..

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Cyfr

Industry has declined around the globe never mind just the UK....

Richer people should have to pay more money, it's not that they won't miss the money, they will just suffer a LOT less than taking it from poorer people, common sense .

In answer to your first statement, industry hasn't declined around the world, it's increased. It's just that it's moved from here to other parts of the globe.

We've gone from being one of the worlds great industrial nation to being a servicable one. Even the biggest call centres are now realising that they can employ workers cheaper in the far east, just as the industrialists did after years of Thatcherism. Free market economy equals cheapest labour, which wasn't here.

Your second statement shows to me that basically you have a good heart, and will one day realise that what you believe in isn't conservatism but socialism, or at the very least liberalism.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

In answer to your first statement, industry hasn't declined around the world, it's increased. It's just that it's moved from here to other parts of the globe.

We've gone from being one of the worlds great industrial nation to being a servicable one. Even the biggest call centres are now realising that they can employ workers cheaper in the far east, just as the industrialists did after years of Thatcherism. Free market economy equals cheapest labour, which wasn't here.

Your second statement shows to me that basically you have a good heart, and will one day realise that what you believe in isn't conservatism but socialism, or at the very least liberalism.

Sorry I should have worded it better, what I ment to say was the need for humans in industry has declined around the world.

I know that the service sector (well parts of it anyway, like call centers as you mention) is a lot cheaper to run overseas in places like india.. but I have faith in the service sector because even things like call centers, might be cheaper, but they are not producing a better quality of service. Some companies even advertise the fact that they have UK only call centers because half the time the overseas call centers get it wrong, or you can't understand what they're saying, and people don't want that when they're dealing with money and credit cards..
I'm not saying call centers in the UK don't get it wrong a lot ('cause they do) but I find it easier if its a UK call center and i'm not the only one.

As for socialism, I can't ever see that happening , i'm just not a far right. I believe that you can use Conservative ideologies to work for everyone not just the rich. I am strongly against just giving people money, but helping people help themselves, now thats something that encourages motivation, you can bring people out of deprivation by helping them help themselves.

[g jones]

Originally Posted by Cyfr

I didn't realise you were refering to then.

...the previous socialist government had wrecked the economy, was keeping millions of people in work when there was no profit to be made...

I know this is thread drift but CYFR...

I am not a fan of old labour at all but I do feel there was more to it than blaming Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan.

McMillan's (Tory) economic outlook was similar to Wilsons (Lab) in it's primary aim was high employment, something voters in the 60's wanted from governments. The union movement gained strength from both parties in power during that period.

Heath (Tory) in 70 tried but failed to manage the economy and realign the social contract (workers/unions and business) more in favour of business. Thats when Britain had the 3 day week, power cuts and strikes (under the Tories).

Wilson was re-elected in 74 but the 60's politics had been replaced by 70's realism. In 76 Wilson resigned and the social contract was over. Callaghan introduced monatarism in 76, (not Thatcher in 79) ending the social contract, curbing union power, imposing wage restraint, controlled the money supply resulting in high unemployment and which resulted in the waves on industrial action you see nostalgically in old news film.

There is a strong argument that the Callaghan government had the balance right (between fiscal and monetary policy) and that Thatcher just carried on Callaghans economic policy but to an extreme (she did). However the mood of the country wasn't for Labour's tougher economic monetarist policies exemplified in the Satchi much vaunted poster; 'Labour isn't working' (with a photo of long line of unemployed). The Thatcher victory was ironic as we ended up with 5million unemployed but the same policies, just more extreme.

To suggest that Thatcher cured Britains ill's is just a convenient rewrite. And to suggest Britain isnt the 'sick man of europe' now thanks to Thatcher (and knock the French and Germans) is double think. You can't on the one hand reject everything French or German and say we have got it right in Britain with low unemployment, restrictived union legislation, free markets, control of money supply, and then blame Blair for Britain supposedly now being 'sick under Labour'.

Besides, French people and German people (without a dose of Thatcherism) still maintain a higher standard of living than British people, so where's does that leave the argument?

One irony is political yo-yoing going on. McMillans fiscal, pro union, high emloyment, Tory govt tells us "we have never had it so good" Callaghans Labour, monetist, high unemmployment, anti union govt and we are told 'we have never had it so bad'. And now Cameron is coming back to no tax cuts and better investment in public services as a priority.

[andrewb]

I havn't quoted some things because well, they are facts and i'm not going to debate facts with you hehe.

However the mood of the country wasn't for Labour's tougher economic monetarist policies exemplified in the Satchi much vaunted poster; 'Labour isn't working' (with a photo of long line of unemployed).

The mood of labour wasn't for it's ties with the trade Unions. People were fed up of being controled by them, and thats the reason that Thatcher won an even greater majority, because Michael Foot's left wing manifesto was the 'longest suicide note in history'.
It dosn't matter if Callaghans government started to turn against Unions, Labour were still tared as Union loving because thats how they'd been for ages. The same way that Conservatives have been tared with thatcherism long after the Conservatives got rid of her..

I'm not saying that the past Conservatives governments before Thatcher were any better because they didn't really try and U-turn the Labour governments policies.

To suggest that Thatcher cured Britains ill's is just a convenient rewrite. And to suggest Britain isnt the 'sick man of europe' now thanks to Thatcher (and knock the French and Germans) is double think. You can't on the one hand reject everything French or German and say we have got it right in Britain with low unemployment, restrictived union legislation, free markets, control of money supply, and then blame Blair for Britain supposedly now being 'sick under Labour'


Besides, French people and German people (without a dose of Thatcherism) still maintain a higher standard of living than British people, so where's does that leave the argument?

I really don't know the history of France well enough to debate it with you, but the germans have proportional representation, extream policy, be it right or left wing will be hard to get pased... so socialism wasn't such a problem with the economy and such, as it was here, so you can't really argue that they have a better standard of living without thatcher, when the UK and Germany were never on the same starting block.

One irony is political yo-yoing going on. McMillans fiscal, pro union, high emloyment, Tory govt tells us "we have never had it so good" Callaghans Labour, monetist, high unemmployment, anti union govt and we are told 'we have never had it so bad'. And now Cameron is coming back to no tax cuts and better investment in public services as a priority.

Cameron said he wanted to split a good economy between tax cuts and public services, but hes indicated that he won't be promising tax cuts in his manifesto, because that would be silly, as he dosn't know what the economy will be like whenever the next election is.

[claytonender]

Originally Posted by Cyfr
'Yes, the way Thatcher went about things made many people unemployed, but the previous socialist government had wrecked the economy, was keeping millions of people in work when there was no profit to be made. How are you supposed to sustain millions of workers who are a burden on your ecnonomy because your throwing money at them when you could get coal etc cheaper elsewhere?'

I know you mean well, but maybe some day you will made unemployed, because it is cheaper to employ someone in another country, or anyone of a number of econmic issues. Then you will understand that it is no consolation that you losing your job makes the company more profitable or viable. I was made redundant twice during the Thatcher/Major years - the first time in 1984 I applied for lots of jobs, only to fell the same sense of rejection every time I received a 'sorry you are not suitable' letter. It was 18 months before I managed to get new permanent job, I can't even begin to describe the feelings of worthlessness that I endured in that time.
The 2nd time I was made redundant in 1996, I decided that as I had 10 years left to work, I would 'Temp' via an accountancy agency, so at least for the last 10 years of my working life, I would be in charge of my life. I wouldn't have an employer telling me when I could have my holidays, or that I had to work overtime etc. I knew I probably wouldn't have a job the next week, but at least I knew no one could make me redundant again. As things turned out I oly didn't work for about 20eeks in the 10 years - and this wasn't consecuatively.
It might seem glib to say there were 5 million unemployed, but remember that is 5 million people who felt their world had ended - they had families to feed and clothe, mortgages to pay, just think of the worries they had.
In fact we are still reaping the after effects of mass unemployment - not everyone was fortunate to get another job that utilised their skills to the full. Also lots of people now in their 30's who left school in the Thatcher /Major era were forced to take jobs for which they were far to overqualified academically, because there was only the YTS on £26.00 a week. They quite often had to get any job going because their families couldn't afford for them not to be working.
As for getting coal cheaper elsewhere, what about the pending crisis we now have with gas. Also selling off the utility companies, ment that they were more interested in making profits for shareholders, and giving massive bonuses to directors than serving their customers. High fuel prices, especially effect the people on the lowest incomes.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Another downside of those years was that some people found that they could live quite well on benefits and brought up children who then had no 'work ethic'.......a sad state of affairs. Then the children grew up and knew how to work the system. I'm not saying that all who claim benefits are scroungers....but many are because they know no different.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by garinda

I've had a pm from Jaysay who doesn't want to go public with some of the things I accused him off, and that's certainly his right, and I understand better what he meant.

I'm still angry that he thinks some of the comments made about Peter Britcliffe on Accy Web were 'vile', and would still like to see one quoted by him so we could discuss it.

i agree its his right no question but i,m still bugged that the comments he made about vile have not been addressed.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Cyfr

As for socialism, I can't ever see that happening , i'm just not a far right. I believe that you can use Conservative ideologies to work for everyone not just the rich. I am strongly against just giving people money, but helping people help themselves, now thats something that encourages motivation, you can bring people out of deprivation by helping them help themselves.

cyfr you aint a tory your just deluding yourself mate, your to good hearted to ever be one.

[Mancie]

Originally Posted by Cyfr

i'm just not a far right. I believe that you can use Conservative ideologies to work for everyone not just the rich. I am strongly against just giving people money, but helping people help themselves, now thats something that encourages motivation, you can bring people out of deprivation by helping them help themselves.

CYFR.. same old 80's Tory spin.."Help people help themselves" = ( miners,textile workers,engineers what help did they get?)
"engourage motivation" = (abolish the wages council and the minimum wage to encourage immigrants to work for peanuts )
"bring people out of deprivation" (a deprivation that the Tory Goverment caused,)
"bring people out of deprivation by helping them help themselves" ( get on your bike, work for a wage you can't even live on while the taxpayer will subsides you with social benifits, at the same time subsidising employers, some of these employers just happen to be members of the cabinet!)

you are an old tory mate.. sad thing is you don't even know you are.

[Mancie]

double job

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by Mancie

CYFR.. same old 80's Tory spin.."Help people help themselves" = ( miners,textile workers,engineers what help did they get?)
"engourage motivation" = (abolish the wages council and the minimum wage to encourage immigrants to work for peanuts )
"bring people out of deprivation" (a deprivation that the Tory Goverment caused,)
"bring people out of deprivation by helping them help themselves" ( get on your bike, work for a wage you can't even live on while the taxpayer will subsides you with social benifits, at the same time subsidising employers, some of these employers just happen to be members of the cabinet!)

you are an old tory mate.. sad thing is you don't even know you are.

I'm sorry but thats just not true. It's not some sort of conspiracy. I can't put right the way Thatcher went about doing things and as someone said, the unemployment isn't wholely her fault anyway.
Face up to reality, the Conservative party is different now, you don't need to have the same old unrational views on the party because of what one of the leaders did some two decades ago.
The same way I don't burn New Labour at the stake for their past decisions, although I am happy to point out where I think old Labour went wrong, I don't think New Labour are the same beast, at least while we have Blair and Brown in charge. A strong ecnonomic right-wring government like Thatchers was only needed to counter the years of Labour AND Tory socialism in the past (Torys never tried to revserse the effects really).

Nowadays theres no need for extream politics because it's been brought to the center. Fifteen years (or whatever it is) on, you can't call the Conservative party the same beast, the grassroots membership voted Cameron in remember, knowing his 'compassionate conservative' credentials. They voted him by 2:1, over the much more right-wing, 'old Tory'.