keg Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) I dont fall for anyones act thats why I loathed thatcher at least Benn was harmless and i certainly dont trust Farage or any of the other puppets that are said to represent us come to that Benn left a toxic legacy that we only just shed in the 90s. His brand of Socialism was central control ( Nationalisation ) of everything. The state was king! There is a long held view that many of his policies contributed to the Industrial problems in the late '80s and the 1980s Edited April 23, 2015 by keg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 I thought Thatcher was in charge during the eighties, when industry was sold off or closed down and the jobless went from 1.5 million in 79 to 3 million in 86, despite the job creation scheme, perhaps Benn was responsible for the boom and bust housing market and there was me thinking he was a flag waving anti apartheid feminist or a guilt ridden lodsa money socialist Benn left a toxic legacy that we only just shed in the 90s. His brand of Socialism was central control ( Nationalisation ) of everything. The state was king! There is a long held view that many of his policies contributed to the Industrial problems in the late '80s and the 1980s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Do read dear chap! The reason we had such high unemployment at that time, which you are correct to point out peaked at 3m ( i left school in 1983, right in the middle of it all) was, it has been suggested, due to the fact that nationalisation for many years had left our industries flabby, uncompetitive, inefficient and generally expecting the orders to come to them. Cars- if we could make affordable, reliable fuel efficient cars, would the japanese have ever got going here? Management were sometimes as bad as the workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 I thought Thatcher was in charge during the eighties, when industry was sold off or closed down and the jobless went from 1.5 million in 79 to 3 million in 86, despite the job creation scheme, perhaps Benn was responsible for the boom and bust housing market and there was me thinking he was a flag waving anti apartheid feminist or a guilt ridden lodsa money socialist Don't forget , Gordon got rid of boom and bust.... Sorry make that only Tory boom and bust, not sure of the difference but that was his excuse! Only two things rule the markets, be it property or the stock exchange.... Fear and greed, it's one or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Do read dear chap! The reason we had such high unemployment at that time, which you are correct to point out peaked at 3m ( i left school in 1983, right in the middle of it all) was, it has been suggested, due to the fact that nationalisation for many years had left our industries flabby, uncompetitive, inefficient and generally expecting the orders to come to them. Cars- if we could make affordable, reliable fuel efficient cars, would the japanese have ever got going here? Management were sometimes as bad as the workers. I do read and I lived through the whole sorry fiasco, thatcher and her cronies in the national press was able to fool most of the people most of the time and that appears to persist to the present day, management were certainly responsible for a bad product the workers simply put together what they were instructed to do albeit badly, Britain has lurched from one inadequate government to another throughout my life (62yrs) mostly dictated too by weak or power mad leaders, I have no answer just a deep distrust of politicians and perhaps respect for anyone that might decide to tell the truth, my take on thatcher was her manipulation of the people who did the work, to make her Tory masters happy, guess what, that could also describe blair or brown or any of the ####s that have pretended to want whats best for ALL the people in Britain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Politicians don't lead the country, business and commerce does. The role of politicians is to keep things in relative balance without trying to upset either side too much. A far right or far left government would cause too much issue so it will always be balanced in the middle. Thatcher saw what was happening and made sure Britain was best placed to take advantage and moved us from heavy state influence to a commerce led country. Look at Greece and their latest government elected to be the champion of the people, as soon as they were in office their backbone of idealism started to get bent towards reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartynGT4 Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Politicians don't lead the country, business and commerce does. The role of politicians is to keep things in relative balance without trying to upset either side too much. A far right or far left government would cause too much issue so it will always be balanced in the middle. Thatcher saw what was happening and made sure Britain was best placed to take advantage and moved us from heavy state influence to a commerce led country. Look at Greece and their latest government elected to be the champion of the people, as soon as they were in office their backbone of idealism started to get bent towards reality. Very true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Politicians don't lead the country, business and commerce does. The role of politicians is to keep things in relative balance without trying to upset either side too much. A far right or far left government would cause too much issue so it will always be balanced in the middle. Thatcher saw what was happening and made sure Britain was best placed to take advantage and moved us from heavy state influence to a commerce led country. Look at Greece and their latest government elected to be the champion of the people, as soon as they were in office their backbone of idealism started to get bent towards reality. unfortunately leaving vast tracts of the country un-employed without manufacturing and importing fuel, shame no middle ground was reached then, which brings us back to the point made a few pages ago about hindsight or indeed foresight, or the original point about thatcher being a man of the people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) It seems callous to say it, but we can't effect change without pain and a degree of pain was inevitable. I'm not suggesting that there could not have been another way, but hindsight affords us huge luxury. Maggie along with Reagan were visionary in many respects. Was that vision the right one to follow? We can have academic argument, but can only judge on result. For the majority it was successful. We can never please everyone, we can only hope to do the best we can for the most people, but there will always be casualties. Communism does not work. Each of us are also individually responsible to make the best of the opportunity afforded to us, or to best manage through adversity when it happens. We cannot expect to have everything managed for us and to my mind that is the single largest failing of socialism. Britain relies on the intellectual capital of it's people, we are the natural resource. To allow successful people to flourish you have to give them an environment to flourish in, but that means less safety nets for the weak. Successful socialist countries like Norway survive just now on being a net exporter of oil, that means they have not had to innovate. Watch how they start to fracture with the decline of oil. We don't have the luxury to be strongly socialist, that is the sad truth. We are either capitalist or we go backwards. Tony Blair recognised that with New Labour too. I have always said we need to have a Tory outlook economically with a strong Labour balance to make sure we don't forget the weaker members of society, but we cannot shape our economy and society around the weakest as that will strangle opportunity. Edited April 23, 2015 by grrclark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 I am no socialist, and I like to see people given opportunity to use their intellect and aspire to all things, this nearly all ways happens without managers (define managers) and this assumption that we must be managed by government for our own good is the basis for my distrust, two things worry me most. The arrogance of those that believe we can be manipulated and the blind faith of those who agree with them and knowingly accept manipulation, as wolfie smith used to say "power to the people" come on farage (gulp) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Tonights fly on the wall doc on farage (ITV 7.30) did him no harm whatsoever, the quote from the woman UKIP supporter in Hartlepool was a gem, she said " the north east made labour and the north east will bury it" KW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Agree with your first point their IG, blind faith is also a dangerous thing. A good manager will always allow things to be questioned. Some would say it's the ultimate in intellectual honesty, allowing your ideas or beliefs to be questioned, especially if you actively invite it. My MD is excellent at this, allows us all our heads but makes sure we all question things. In a PM, this can be seen as weakness and in a "business" the size of a country, you simply cannot allow for all yoiur decisions to be questioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 I am no socialist, and I like to see people given opportunity to use their intellect and aspire to all things, this nearly all ways happens without managers (define managers) and this assumption that we must be managed by government for our own good is the basis for my distrust, two things worry me most. The arrogance of those that believe we can be manipulated and the blind faith of those who agree with them and knowingly accept manipulation, as wolfie smith used to say "power to the people" come on farage (gulp) I agree, government and governance with the minimum of management and regulation suits me perfectly fine. That is the theory behind Hayekian economics which circuitously enough was the guiding principle of Thatcher. That is why i am ideologically opposed to a large state and why I am strongly anti SNP and anti Miliband too. Sadly too many in our society want to legislate for everything. As a bit of thought drift is it reasonable to suggest that those in our society who become casualty to economic decisions could be compared to those in our society who were casualty of war? Given that commerce is a largely stabilising influence on developed nations, the workforce is effectively our national army. The country that wins in the commerce battle has less casualties. Spain, Greece, France, Portugal, etc are all struggling and have greater social problems than we do, i.e greater casualties because they lose more battles. Philosophically that would be considered to be deductively invalid no doubt, but i'm not presenting it as a philosophical argument, maybe just the seed of one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 I agree, government and governance with the minimum of management and regulation suits me perfectly fine. That is the theory behind Hayekian economics which circuitously enough was the guiding principle of Thatcher. That is why i am ideologically opposed to a large state and why I am strongly anti SNP and anti Miliband too. Sadly too many in our society want to legislate for everything. As a bit of thought drift is it reasonable to suggest that those in our society who become casualty to economic decisions could be compared to those in our society who were casualty of war? Given that commerce is a largely stabilising influence on developed nations, the workforce is effectively our national army. The country that wins in the commerce battle has less casualties. Spain, Greece, France, Portugal, etc are all struggling and have greater social problems than we do, i.e greater casualties because they lose more battles. Philosophically that would be considered to be deductively invalid no doubt, but i'm not presenting it as a philosophical argument, maybe just the seed of one. this is precisely the argument used by those against a united Europe, which I think your for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 this is precisely the argument used by those against a united Europe, which I think your for I am very against Europe for that exact reason, but admit that I am torn on whether we should exit. Does pursuing one ideological outcome cause a bigger problem? I honestly don't know. I would yes to leave, but worry that, as under Thatcher's economic reform, the result of that does damage to a lot of people for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 I agree. I have the same dillema and no one can give me a clear answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 As a bit of thought drift is it reasonable to suggest that those in our society who become casualty to economic decisions could be compared to those in our society who were casualty of war? Given that commerce is a largely stabilising influence on developed nations, the workforce is effectively our national army. The country that wins in the commerce battle has less casualties. Spain, Greece, France, Portugal, etc are all struggling and have greater social problems than we do, i.e greater casualties because they lose more battles. Philosophically that would be considered to be deductively invalid no doubt, but i'm not presenting it as a philosophical argument, maybe just the seed of one. I can see your thinking but where would countries like Russia fit into the theory,developed yes, but a largely poor country because of communism not capitalism, are they casualties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 I am very against Europe for that exact reason, but admit that I am torn on whether we should exit. Does pursuing one ideological outcome cause a bigger problem? I honestly don't know. I would yes to leave, but worry that, as under Thatcher's economic reform, the result of that does damage to a lot of people for a long time. sorry i thought you were pro europe I agree. I have the same dillema and no one can give me a clear answer. KW seems quite convinced perhaps you both should take it up with him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 That would involve him listening for a bit rather than talking I'll pass thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 I can see your thinking but where would countries like Russia fit into the theory,developed yes, but a largely poor country because of communism not capitalism, are they casualties? They are only partly developed with little sophistication throughout their entire society. The poor of Russia are casualties of capitalism certainly and casualties through abuse of communism too. Putin is a dictator in all but name who plays on nationalistic sentiment and fear. The oligarchs were a massive threat so he marginalised them, but wealth gave them an escape denied to the vast majority. I don't pretend my thought was complete, was just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 sorry i thought you were pro europe No apology required, i waffle on enough to confuse most folk I am very much anti EU, but wary of the consequence of leaving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 You could say that some of the developed countries have the same level of "little sophistication",there are areas of portugal and spain that are very poor also some parts of france have always been rural and poor,to take your theory forward you would need to establish some standards,how you work out the poor percentage of each country,and then how you standardise the figures to allow for the different size of each country. It could get very interesting if some time was spent on it,once you have the ground rules set to standardise,you could run a league,with monthly updates, points for and against,countries could move up and down the league and even be demoted or promoted. I think i may have to much time on my hands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 I daresay that you could work a league table It is a philosophical discussion I guess, i know someone who was a don of philosophy at Cambridge, i shall maybe float it past him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Its hard to believe that they wernt able to use their not inconsiderable influence to make a few bob Show me someone who wouldn't do the same given the opportunity and I will send you a pound of rocking horse **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted April 24, 2015 Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 That would involve him listening for a bit rather than talking I'll pass thanks. one can only listen to so much **** KW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts