Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

Thatcherism - The Political Debate Thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
324 replies to this topic

#281 Phil

Phil
  • Coach
  • 2,049 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 07:48 PM

There are clearly not 2.5 million vacancies.

 

Part of the problem is that the Labour government created a lot of jobs but they mostly didn't go to Britons. We aren't going to get "full employment" whilst Eastern European is in the economic state that it is in. It might be possible in the future.

 

In the old days, full employment was taken to mean around 2% unemployment to allow for "frictional unemployment" i.e. people changing jobs or unemployed temporarily. I think full employment these days should be redefined as "those people who want to work have a job", there are too many who don't.

 

 

advances in technology throughout the world means there will be an increase in unemployment world wide, not at a uniform rate but definitely and inexorably. I repeat my question what do we do with unemployed people in a world where large numbers of unemployed is the norm?


"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

#282 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 07:54 PM

advances in technology throughout the world means there will be an increase in unemployment world wide, not at a uniform rate but definitely and inexorably. I repeat my question what do we do with unemployed people in a world where large numbers of unemployed is the norm?

Remove barriers to the labour market and share jobs around more equitably. Too much protection of those with jobs.

 

I'm not sure that I agree that more technology necessarily means less employment.



#283 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 07:58 PM

Doesn't, 'simply not wanting to work' cover it?
If it doesn't ok substitute the phrase for 'laziness'
I've met all sorts of people who 'don't want to work'
They are massively outnumbered by the millions who do.

Edit and who are these left wing idealogues who say what you say they say?
You don't have to use emotive words to 'demonise' people . That's the English language for you

I'm quite happy to demonise those who don't want to work, however, you have chosen to interpret this as me saying that all unemployed people don't want to work. I have no idea why you would do that.

 

And "the left" means people on the left of the Labour party or to the left of the Labour party.No unemployment in socialist countries apparently.



#284 Phil

Phil
  • Coach
  • 2,049 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 07:59 PM

Remove barriers to the labour market and share jobs around more equitably. Too much protection of those with jobs.

 

I'm not sure that I agree that more technology necessarily means less employment.

 

 

BUT you're not answering my question, what do gov'ts do about the unemployed?


"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

#285 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,822 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 08:15 PM

Interesting debate this. Makes me think that it's much harder to build something than knock it down. Attlee the builder and Thatcher the demolition merchant with little perspective on collateral damage. That's why the Yanks like her so much.

The big difference being blue on red and not blue on blue


Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

#286 Saint Billinge

Saint Billinge
  • Coach
  • 2,721 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 08:16 PM

both our lives have had ups and downs and we've got on with living: which is what I was on about.

 

If my family and I can have nice things, or go to nice places it's because we've earned the right to.

 

What I object to: and this does seem to be part of the Thatcher legacy is that those who haven't got or had  the chance to earn a decent living for whatever reason are demonised as the underclass, and as scroungers, and 'chavs' when the vast majority are nothing of the sort.

This was brought home to me with the disparity of public and media attitude between Madelyn McAnn and Shannon Mathews. Also in the way that Shannon's mother's appalling behaviour after she was  was exposed was attributed to all people who live in council estates.

 

When the unemployment figures go up and down does that mean that the number of 'scroungers' or lazy people go up and down? It doesn't.

 

The unemployed and the impoverished have always been derided the 'haves', it makes them/us feel better than 'them', anything 'they' do have they shouldn't have, and has been given to them by their exploitation of those who have. I don't accept this for by far the majority of people who live on benefits. 

 

It's ok for some reason to mock 'chavs', or to enjoy the Hogarthian circus of the Jeremy Kyle Show. That kind of thing wouldn't be allowed if it were any other social group, and to me these attitudes whilst always present have become widespread and embodied into our natural psyche ovet the last thirty years and I think our way of life is the poorer for it.

 

Out of interest, it was said recently that there are now 'seven' levels of class! in our society! I can only comment on people whom I know. One person living nearby claimed Motability in order to buy a car for his daughter. A couple have claimed disability benefit for over 13 years, yet one has been a cleaner and the other an expert in D.I.Y., as well as carrying out work for others. Another has been a taxi driver and cleaner whilst on benefits. Perhaps it's these people who tar decent people who cannot genuinely get on in life. No doubt about it, the media picks up on those who cheat the system which makes the headlines. That said, we all know about the expenses scandal which doesn't set an example.



#287 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,822 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 08:17 PM

Remove barriers to the labour market and share jobs around more equitably. Too much protection of those with jobs.

 

I'm not sure that I agree that more technology necessarily means less employment.

Does that include taking three days a week off of you to give to someone else?


Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

#288 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,643 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 07:09 AM

I'm quite happy to demonise those who don't want to work, however, you have chosen to interpret this as me saying that all unemployed people don't want to work. I have no idea why you would do that.

 

And "the left" means people on the left of the Labour party or to the left of the Labour party.No unemployment in socialist countries apparently.

yes I'm quite not happy, but willing to do this.

 

How do you differentiate between those who 'want o work' an those who don't?  Do you think that those who want to work might pretend not to, so that they can get to the front of the job queue? What if those who 'don't want to work' see the 'error of ther ways' and decide that they want to work after all will they be made redundant and  go back on unemployment benefits?

 

What work will they do?

 

I was going to say that you've left te best til last, but it's a dead heat. The idea that the labour party isa  'left wing one' is about 60 years out of date, but go on, who are these people and when and what did they say that conforms to your view of them supposing they actually exist?  Your last comment is a as meaningless as it is irrelevant, and your get out clause of using the world 'apparently' I'm afraid doesn't work.


Edited by l'angelo mysterioso, 17 April 2013 - 07:13 AM.

WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#289 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 15,403 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 07:17 AM

both our lives have had ups and downs and we've got on with living: which is what I was on about.

 

If my family and I can have nice things, or go to nice places it's because we've earned the right to.

 

What I object to: and this does seem to be part of the Thatcher legacy is that those who haven't got or had  the chance to earn a decent living for whatever reason are demonised as the underclass, and as scroungers, and 'chavs' when the vast majority are nothing of the sort.

This was brought home to me with the disparity of public and media attitude between Madelyn McAnn and Shannon Mathews. Also in the way that Shannon's mother's appalling behaviour after she was  was exposed was attributed to all people who live in council estates.

 

When the unemployment figures go up and down does that mean that the number of 'scroungers' or lazy people go up and down? It doesn't.

 

The unemployed and the impoverished have always been derided the 'haves', it makes them/us feel better than 'them', anything 'they' do have they shouldn't have, and has been given to them by their exploitation of those who have. I don't accept this for by far the majority of people who live on benefits. 

 

It's ok for some reason to mock 'chavs', or to enjoy the Hogarthian circus of the Jeremy Kyle Show. That kind of thing wouldn't be allowed if it were any other social group, and to me these attitudes whilst always present have become widespread and embodied into our natural psyche ovet the last thirty years and I think our way of life is the poorer for it.

 

 

I think the nature of unemployment benefit changed when it became "Job Seekers Allowance"  Instead of a benefit you've paid for to cover you when you fall out of work, until you are employed again, it is used in order to coerce people into jobs - any job.

Some years ago I was unfortunately made redundant.  The company I worked for went bust and the redundancy pay would be reduced by the value of any benefits I didn't claim. I thus went to the Job Centre to claim "Jobseekers Allowance"

I was lectured by my interviewer about what I could and couldnt' claim, I knew I was not entiled to the suplementary benefits and said so. Nevertheless that afternoon I had a phone call saying could they vist me the follwoing day to discuss benefits I had not claimed.

The woman from the Job Centre arrived at my house, walked into my living room and stood with her back to my fireplace and her first words to me were "Now then Mr ----- what have you done about getting another job?"  I'd been out of work 1 day!


"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014


#290 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,643 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 07:17 AM

Out of interest, it was said recently that there are now 'seven' levels of class! in our society! I can only comment on people whom I know. One person living nearby claimed Motability in order to buy a car for his daughter. A couple have claimed disability benefit for over 13 years, yet one has been a cleaner and the other an expert in D.I.Y., as well as carrying out work for others. Another has been a taxi driver and cleaner whilst on benefits. Perhaps it's these people who tar decent people who cannot genuinely get on in life. No doubt about it, the media picks up on those who cheat the system which makes the headlines. That said, we all know about the expenses scandal which doesn't set an example.

why should they 'tar' anybody? They are acting as individuals of their own volition and they are criminals.

 

When a person of another social group does something wrong do they 'tar' the rest of that group?


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#291 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,461 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 07:58 AM

Remove barriers to the labour market and share jobs around more equitably. Too much protection of those with jobs.

 

I'm not sure that I agree that more technology necessarily means less employment.

 

That seems to be an advocation of lots of part-time jobs?

 

I can't see how it creates more employment opportunities otherwise.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#292 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 8,099 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 08:16 AM

 

But look what goes and happens :she dies and there just isn't enough vomit in the world to expectorate in reaction to the venal, ass kissing beatification of the woman and what she stood for. Plus the taxpayers of a supposedly skint country has to pay for her Gilbert and Sullivan funeral.
 
There's bound to be a reaction. Personally all sorts of memories have been let out of their box, not by her death at a good age but by the reaction to it. I hope that when the funeral is over and bought and paid for with my money and the money of my brother who now works in the health surface, the stone that has been lifted can be let down with a thud.

Do you not find it ironic that the majority of the cost being borne by the taxpayer is for security measures against those who will protest against the cost ?

#293 Saint Billinge

Saint Billinge
  • Coach
  • 2,721 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 08:20 AM

why should they 'tar' anybody? They are acting as individuals of their own volition and they are criminals.

 

When a person of another social group does something wrong do they 'tar' the rest of that group?

 

Whilst working in my last factory one lad was caught using drugs. From then on, everyone was subjected to random testing. With regard to false benefit claimants/unemployed, however small, it makes things worse for the rest. Like you said, the choice of words to describe the unemployed/benefit claimants was shameful, but it seems everyone gets herded into the same pen! It's much easier for such as the Government  to categorise as a whole, rather than back-up with statistics. 

 

Whilst out of work due to a wrist injury before Christmas, I had to attend a back to work interview, which came across as trickery: guilty until proved innocent. This type of interview has been confirmed by others. 


Edited by Saint Billinge, 17 April 2013 - 08:42 AM.


#294 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,836 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 08:26 AM

All the unemployed workers are truly fortunate that their status affords them a fantastic opportunity to watch every second of Britain's first Party Political Funeral.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#295 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 8,099 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 08:30 AM

 

All the unemployed workers are truly fortunate that their status affords them a fantastic opportunity to watch every second of Britain's first Party Political Funeral.

Yes, because under a Blair led government she'd have only had a full state funeral......

#296 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,836 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 08:34 AM

 Yes, because under a Blair led government she'd have only had a full state funeral......

 

 

If he looks thoughtful during the service, my guess it will be because he's working out how he can make his funeral even more grandiose.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#297 Ramite

Ramite
  • Coach
  • 929 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 08:46 AM

Will Blairs funeral cause the same amount furore , street parties and protests?
Homer: How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?

[

i]Mr. Burns: Woah, slow down there maestro. There's a *New* Mexico?[/i]


#298 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,148 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 09:30 AM

I am disappointed that they chose not to use the Daily Mash's version of events today.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#299 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,836 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 09:31 AM

Will Blairs funeral cause the same amount furore , street parties and protests?

 

At least Cherie will be wearing a veil.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#300 Phil

Phil
  • Coach
  • 2,049 posts

Posted 17 April 2013 - 10:11 AM

Remove barriers to the labour market and share jobs around more equitably. Too much protection of those with jobs.

 

I'm not sure that I agree that more technology necessarily means less employment.

 

 

so making it easier to put people out of work will produce more employment?   :blink:  :blink:


"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users