Media's Handling of Thatchers Death - Small comparison within.

reply to post by eletheia


Have you seen the new homeless people? They hang around stores, off liscence but they always wear the latest designer. Such as Nike, Adidas and so forth. They are always well dressed. And they have tons of money for drink. I have witnessed this myself. They dont need to beg anymore.

And although begging is not nice , at least when they beg they are asking for what they need. But now they dont ask, they just get. Dont know, I reckon they get disability, because with alchohol comes certain mental health issues such as hallucinations and paranoia, etc .

So I think this funds their lifestyle.

reply to post by FreedomEntered


Jobs for life also stymies social mobility.. Anyone who wants to work the same job for 40 years then retire is, in my book, lacking any kind of ambition or drive. Yes, it gave security, but at what cost? At least today there is social mobility and opportunity, which is something many gloss over when criticising Maggie while at the same time ignoring the unparalleled economic record she had.

reply to post by stumason


Yes, but job security for life was more realistic then todays. Now people hopping around and getting educated but not having the jobs available to them. Doesnt really make sense...

reply to post by FreedomEntered


Jobs are available, but for years the engineering, science and other professional fields have been saying that people coming out of Uni have done the wrong degrees. With Tony Blairs hard-on for getting everyone into Uni, most do worthless degrees and the sheer volume of "degree educated" people on the market has watered down the value.

Prime example - young bloke has joined our apprenticeship scheme. He's early 20's and went to Uni. (I work for a large Telecoms firm, by the way) After leaving Uni, he worked for four years doing bar work before landing this Telecoms apprenticeship.

His degree?

Sociology.... Say's it all really. A good example of a mickey mouse Degree. He now has student debt to pay off for doing a course that has no value in anything, when he could have left school at 16/18 and got the same apprenticeship but be living without the debt and be several years ahead of where he is now.

Basically, like I tell my kids, if you want to go to UNi that's fine, but actually do a course that will get you a career, not simply whatever course tickles your fancy only to find out it's worth nothing.

Double post

reply to post by stumason


But it was social housing, designed for those who could not afford their own homes. Great for those that could afford to buy themat the time,not so great that there is now no social housing stock left and the government now pays dodgy landlords housing benefit to now house those who can not afford housing. Surely if thatcher had really wanted to promote aspiration, maybe those in the social houses should have been encouraged to purchase on the private market. Leaving social housing for its intended purpose and saving the tax payer, who now forks out for housing benefit to unscrupulous land lords.

reply to post by stumason


Fewer people actually need degrees than you realise, take even creative feilds like fashion you have many designers who learnt their trades from tailors , ie poorer people okay? And they didnt go to university. They just worked hard and worked their way up.

Or take business people, how many business folk have actual degrees? Not many I doubt.

Or say other feilds . The problem is there are toooooo many degree choices at university, yes doctors and scientists need to go to univesity. But many people can be trained up.

Ie, you become boss if you want to by/through working at the bottom.

They should cut degrees. Then what you will find is many people going for the same degree. So many people would be qualified to be doctors and so forth but this is better than having a degree that as you said doesnt fit quite so well " in the real world" . I think many are just encouraged to take degrees for the sake of it.

But everyone secretly loves the story of coming from the bottom and going up. Because.. that means youve worked harder. And really know your trade. Not saying university graduates dont know their trade, Im just sayingt that ... alot of learning can be done in the work place.

Margeret Thatcher sold deeds to the council thus making it possible for poor people to buy their council homes. I think this is good. Really we need another Margeret Thatcher now. She was sensible.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Well the govenment needs to CONTROL dodgy landlords. You think dodgy landlords arent rolling in it? Of course they are. And if their bottoms were kicked into gear they would soon obey the government.

reply to post by FreedomEntered




I don't know if you are being sarcastic? ...but


I do know that not far from where my daughter lives about 10 years ago a group of homes

were built for multi occupational purpose for people with 'problems' There is a small

mini market at the top of that street which benefits from the constant 'to-ing and fro-ing' of

these people from 9.00am to 9.00pm buying a couple of 'cans' at a time!....

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
Fewer people actually need degrees than you realise, take even creative feilds like fashion you have many designers who learnt their trades from tailors , ie poorer people okay? And they didnt go to university. They just worked hard and worked their way up.

Indeed.. As I said, I was "poor" as a lad, left school (and home) @ 16, bummed around and got my apprenticeship..Basically from that point it was a slow but gradual climb up the ladder. Unfortunately, many don't seem prepared these days to do the hard graft early on to reap the rewards later - they want them now.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Another issue now is parents. They can have as many children as they want but there is no land left and the land that is left is owned by the rich and the rich arent kind, nor generous, nor ethical.

So what you find is men who dont look after their children, Im not talking all men I am speaking of a percentage who dont take care of their kids and this means the tax payers are paying.

This has accured with the breakdown of the instituition of " marriage". Which kept the family togeather.Through thick and thin.

Thatcher herself was an old fashioned but working woman, she believed a woman should work and should also be a home maker, which is fine. But today people dont copy that. They just try to avoid what they can.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


What people forget is that when Thatcher took over, the UK was still reeling from the effects of WW2, including the nationalised industries and social housing. The latter only came about after the War to house those displaced by bombings etc - a town near me, Bracknell, is a prime example of this - it was built up to house London "ex-pats". All Thatcher was doing was trying to get Britain out of this War malaise where the state was so involved in everything, so much so it actually stifled innovation, growth and general prosperity.

Yes, it should have been better planned, we know this now in hindsight, but at the same time, it shouldn't be the States responsibility to house everyone. They should just create the conditions where people and the market can provide said housing and, for a long time, this worked until the crash in 2008.

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
Another issue now is parents. They can have as many children as they want but there is no land left and the land that is left is owned by the rich and the rich arent kind, nor generous, nor ethical.

There is plenty of land. Less than 10% of the land in the UK is urbanised. The problem, as I have seen in my own area as the council is trying to build 5,000 new homes by 2015, is NIMBY's. Everyone wants the Government to do something, but when they do, they don't want it anywhere near them. Comes back to the "I'm alright Jack" thing...

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

Your right nobody wants to work for nothing ....However...someone working for

minimum wage 35/40 hours a week comes out NO better off than someone

on benefits, who has their *benefits* plus payment of *rent* and *council tax*paid too

(the biggest outlays for the domestic budget)


*Benefits* were never intended to be a way of life only a safety net!

You do know that people on low incomes (minimum pay) do receive housing and council tax benefits too, don't you?

People on benefits don't get too much money at all, gov pays them the bare minimum they need to exist. The problem is with earned income. Companies don't pay their workers enough to live on like they used to do, they pay the equivalent (or thereabouts) to benefit rates.

If companies paid a proper living wage, then working people would (and should) be way in front with their incomes compared to benefits.

reply to post by eletheia

Nobody but a magician can take more out of the pot than what is put in ... Without keeping
it replenished one day it will be empty!!!!!!!

MP's take out of the pot constantly for all sorts of unnecessary luxuries.

And many corporations don't put anything in the pot at all, but are taking from it in a big way by forcing their workers to claim low-income benefits, and bosses bank the money which they should be paying these people.

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by DrHammondStoat

 

My mother 10 years older than Margaret Thatcher therefor 'same generation,' and in their

generation sex was a 'non topic' and paedophiles and sex predators had not yet been

outed. and in the open as they are now. About 15 years ago my mother was horrified

to discover that a family friend who she had known all her life a very presentable

charming and entertaining man...didn't look in the least bit pervy was a paedophile!


So it's very possible she didn't know, my mother didn't ...'innocence is always unsuspicious'

I see what you mean, many members of the public just thought he was just eccentric, one of my Grandma's thought he was a 'wrong un' because he wore strange costumes but she was in the minority. But really what about someone like PM who is going to have those she accociates with heavily background checked?
The same with the Royal family , Charles, Andrew, Lord Mountbatten, the queen, the queen mother, Diana. Saville was close to them all. Also there's Jeffrey Epstien, an American paedophile that Airmiles Andy spent many holidays with. Either M15 forgot to check Saville out (not really possible!) or they knew but were prepared to let him get on with things for some reason. That reason is a whole other topic.

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

>>>>>>That's £53 /£71 ...You forgot

>>>>>>Plus rent £80 / £100? depending

>>>>>>Plus council tax £30 / £40? a week

>>>>>>Child/rens benefit???

Oh and I believe alcoholics get a daily allowance for drink??

Rent - Everyone has to live somewhere, its easier to pay the rent for them. They are not "receiving" that money to spend, they never even see it.

Council Tax - All benefit claimants will now have to pay council tax (somehow out of their measly £53/£71 a week) So you can take that off your list. Yet another attack on the already poor.

Not all people on the dole have children, stop stereotyping. Not that the money given to them is enough to actually raise a child in luxury.

Alcoholics get a daily allowance do they? Like to see some evidence for that.

If you really want to know what it's like being on the dole, put down your Daily Mail and go and experience it for yourself, or are you to good for that?

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

Stop the presses, we have the worlds best economist here to solve all the problems!

You see, the issue with raising minimum wages is that it fuels inflation, through higher costs as a result of higher pay and also by having more money in the economy, driving up demand. You won't ever solve this issue by simply "upping the wages", the problem will still be there and in 5 years time you'll be saying "up the wages" again... It just pushes up the cost of living for everyone, effecting those on low pay the worst.

That's because capitalist society loves inequality. Its a foreign concept to them that someone should be able to work a # job and actually manage to survive and live decently. If the lowest members of society dont even have a small amount of disposable income, how is business to flourish!? By being able to sell the absolute essentials to people at inflated prices they're just screwing over everyone else with their greed. If i have to spend half my wage on rent, a large chunk on food, gas, water, electric, tv licence, council tax etc, how the hell am i to buy anything else!? The system is broken and you know it. They will always argue that raising wages isnt an option, well tell me Mr. Economist, what is the solution? Just let people work for nothing?

You know the difference between now and pre-Thatcher? Those "working class" poor didn't have all the luxuries we waste our money on today, this is why they got by.

Luxuries such as what? Not everyone has sky TV in their house because guess what? People cant afford it! Shocking revelation?

They didn't have mobile phones, cable TV, two cars to run, foreign holidays.

There is no one i know who works for the minimum wage who has Cable, a second car or can afford to go on holiday. What part of the country are you living in because i might just move there!

The problem with many at the low end of the pay scale is they want these things so they get them, then complain the cost of living is too high, without it ever occurring to them to try and live within their means and better themselves so they can have it in the future - damn it, they want it now!!!

I disagree completely. The working poor is becoming ever larger. You're painting this rosy picture like its all their fault and im utterly shocked that you're suggesting such a thing while companies like tescos/walmart announce profits that run into their millions while paying their staff an absolute pittance.

My sister is a prime example. She is on benefits, her BF works cash in hand, they have their rent/council tax paid and also get al the other fluff.. They have cable TV, a 50" 3D plasma, a Range rover and drink to excess every night of the week. But they still complain about these benefit cuts and crying about "how are they going to make ends meet?" - maybe try cutting out the two bottles of wine per night, that's a good start - cut out the TV sub, get a smaller car? People have to live within their means, but as a society we have got used to the instant gratification that we simply cannot fathom it.

Your sister and her BF dont represent everyone in the system. They are a small minority. You know yourself there will always be people that do that kind of stuff because a proper job would not provide them with a proper wage to afford the things they have. Why spend your life working, making profit for someone else and never seeing any of it for yourself? Makes.No.Sense.

The problem is complex, simply waving a magic wand at it and uttering the phrase "Agracadabra - there is some cash" won't solve anything.

The problem is complex yes, but solving it starts with not being tight. Share the wealth, give people a chance to earn a proper living.

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by TheBlackHat

 

Where do you think that the money comes from that pays out the benefits? It doesn't

come from some magic pot that just magically keeps topped up!!


It comes from those that work paying their taxes some of them earning little more than

those who are getting benefits ...


Nobody but a magician can take more out of the pot than what is put in ... Without keeping

it replenished one day it will be empty!!!!!!!

And how much money is this country losing due to tax loops that are sought out by the wealthy because they dont feel that they should contribute any of their "Hard earnings" to British society? I can tell you, that the number is far greater than what the welfare tab currently is. Its runs into its BILLIONS.

Having a go at people who claim benefits while your masters are stuff money away in offshore bank accounts and paying the daily mail to make daily attacks on the jobless. You're a fool for buying it.