Give over.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thatcher is ill
- Thread starter SuitsBlue
- Start date
- Status
How old were you, Bruce? As a matter of interest.
I'm not saying that life wasn't tough for some people. All I'm saying is that using others as an excuse for your life is not the way to go. The notion of a job for life is simply not there any more. If you find one avenue closed down to you, you try another one. Giving so much control over your life to a third party is a cop out. Where's your fighting spirit? If, as many here suggest, the woman is reviled then say "[Poor language removed] you misses, I'm going to succeed in life with or without your help".
No one owes you anything in life. To be honest I don't particularly like this current government taking around 50% of my income each year. Well, to be totally honest I think it's criminal. But it's no excuse to stop trying to do your best in life.
I said in a previous post about the Thatcher government trying to instill a sense of self responsibility in people and that's so important. Every child in this country gets 10+ years of 'free' education. I've worked in schools and so many kids abuse this privilege. When you look such a gift horse in the mouth do you really have any right to complain about not finding work as an adult? People in hundreds of countries around the world would kill for the education our kids get for nothing.
Life can be tough at times, that's just how it is. But rest assured that there are billions around the world with life much tougher than we have it. Roll your sleeves up and get on with it, make the most of the bloody good opportunities we do have. I spoke in the rugby/cricket threads about players going soft by having things too easy and the same is true in so many other areas of life.
No one owes you anything in life. To be honest I don't particularly like this current government taking around 50% of my income each year. Well, to be totally honest I think it's criminal. But it's no excuse to stop trying to do your best in life.
I said in a previous post about the Thatcher government trying to instill a sense of self responsibility in people and that's so important. Every child in this country gets 10+ years of 'free' education. I've worked in schools and so many kids abuse this privilege. When you look such a gift horse in the mouth do you really have any right to complain about not finding work as an adult? People in hundreds of countries around the world would kill for the education our kids get for nothing.
Life can be tough at times, that's just how it is. But rest assured that there are billions around the world with life much tougher than we have it. Roll your sleeves up and get on with it, make the most of the bloody good opportunities we do have. I spoke in the rugby/cricket threads about players going soft by having things too easy and the same is true in so many other areas of life.
I didn't quite catch the leap of thinking which goes from "disliking Thatcher" to "using her as an excuse for your life". Maybe you could explain that a little bit more explicitly for those who might not be as learned or as well-read as yourself?
And surely all those people who are worse off than us anyway should also be rolling up their sleeves and getting to work? Instead of blaming external influences like famine and war? According to your theories, at least...
(And, philosophically speaking, shouldn't you be welcoming illegal immigration, rather than condemning it, since they are the ones who have got off their backsides and done something about their situation?)
And surely all those people who are worse off than us anyway should also be rolling up their sleeves and getting to work? Instead of blaming external influences like famine and war? According to your theories, at least...
(And, philosophically speaking, shouldn't you be welcoming illegal immigration, rather than condemning it, since they are the ones who have got off their backsides and done something about their situation?)
No prime minister can take away a persons future.
Oh come now, you accuse me of making a leap of thinking and now you compare people on the brink of starvation living off a couple of pence a day with anyone living in Britain. Some people in the world have a justified reason to grumble at their lot. People in Britain don't. Offer those starving people you talk of 10 years of free education and see how many blow the opportunity like so many do in this country. You only have to look at our education statistics to see this as ethnic minorities outscore white children in pretty much every metric you care to use.
I'm not sure I mentioned immigration at all but as you've raised it, yes I am in favour of immigration. We live in a global economy and as such it makes sense for people to be flexible, both in the skills they attain and the places they look to work. The problem of illegal immigration seems to stem as much as anything from migrants being perceived to get something for nothing. I doubt many care if they pick strawberries for a few pound an hour, but as soon as one uses the NHS or receives child benefit people are up in arms.
Actually that was exaggeration used for the purposes of argument.
For example, you can say "I think everyone should stand on their own two feet" and believe that about everyone. Or you can say - as you now appear to be doing - "everyone should stand on their own two feet, apart from those who don't meet a certain standard". In which case, the answer is not about political philosophy but practical differences about where and how resources should be allocated.
As far as I understood your politics (from other previous threads as well) you believed that there should be no government intervention and that the rich would intervene when they felt the urge to donate money to deserving causes. I always felt that there were some major holes in that argument and one major one was that when you apply that to nations rather than individuals it doesn't appear to be functioning too well.
You recommended that other people should read Hayek earlier, I recommend that you take a look at the social/economic theory of the "Tragedy of the Commons" and its relevance to the responsibility of a community to act in the best interests of the community rather than the individual.
(I mentioned immigration as I thought it was relevant both to what you were talking about and several recent threads here mentioning cultural differences, Britain being "swamped", etc.)
For example, you can say "I think everyone should stand on their own two feet" and believe that about everyone. Or you can say - as you now appear to be doing - "everyone should stand on their own two feet, apart from those who don't meet a certain standard". In which case, the answer is not about political philosophy but practical differences about where and how resources should be allocated.
As far as I understood your politics (from other previous threads as well) you believed that there should be no government intervention and that the rich would intervene when they felt the urge to donate money to deserving causes. I always felt that there were some major holes in that argument and one major one was that when you apply that to nations rather than individuals it doesn't appear to be functioning too well.
You recommended that other people should read Hayek earlier, I recommend that you take a look at the social/economic theory of the "Tragedy of the Commons" and its relevance to the responsibility of a community to act in the best interests of the community rather than the individual.
(I mentioned immigration as I thought it was relevant both to what you were talking about and several recent threads here mentioning cultural differences, Britain being "swamped", etc.)
The comment was made in reference to Thatcher having ruined an individuals chances in life, and in that context I don't believe it to be possible. We've had 'free' state funded education for all children now for decades. Where does the buck stop when people still leave school unable to read or write properly? I believe the buck should essentially stop at you. It's your life, if you go to school and don't try then who elses fault is it?
I don't personally think it is confined to the rich. Bare in mind that you only have to earn £33,000 a year to start paying 40%. Does that make a rich man? Yet despite the average Briton essentially working for the government up until June 3rd (tax freedom day) we still donate on average £210 a year to charitable causes. Look at the reaction to the Asian tsunami for instance. The British people responded far quicker than the government did, and in greater numbers.
There has been quite a bit of research into this and the general consensus is that when people pay others to do a job they don't then do it themselves, which sounds fairly obvious really. So when people give up on average 42% of their income to the government to do charitable and social deeds they're less likely to undertake them themselves.
I had a feeling Hardin would be mentioned once the immigration subject had been raised and it is an interesting topic, and one that's debated quite often on the population forum in my sig. I guess it comes down to two distinct parts.
If you look at the social/economic angle it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Time after time you hear councils complaining of services being stretched due to increases in population. How often do you ever hear a company complaining that their market is increasing in size? More customers = more money. By the same measure, presumably more migrants = more taxes to cover services for them. If the migrants aren't contributing then we get back to my point from the previous section don't we?
If we look at the environmental angle then that too has complexities to it. Clearly Britain is an island and so one would think a limited capacity. We interviewed the chair of the Optimum Population Trust a few weeks ago and they suggest a UK population of just 17 million as being sustainable. It does require clarification however. Are we to expect all of our needs to be produced domestically? Things like GM crops increase yields but many in Europe are opposed to them. Would people be happy with cloned livestock? Science has many possible solutions to extend carrying capacity but the ethical argument may intervene. There are probably more issues than this topic can handle on population but feel free to have a browse of our population forum http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/forum/population-forum/
Nebbiolo
Valuation: £108 million
There is a difference between many politicians being self-serving and all of them being somehow uninterested in the lives of ordinary people. Many politicians, from across the political divide, actually do give a toss about the lives of ordinary people. They might disagree how to achieve good, but they still want to improve society. Not everyone is John Redwood, George Osbourne, George Galloway etc, etc.
Also, I don't doubt that Thatcher brought in much needed economic change to the country. But she did a lot of harm:
1. She stopped free milk for school children and deregulated school meals so that kids could have a great choice of pizzas, pies and burgers. Obesity crisis waiting to happen.
2. Balls up the Falklands crisis by initially ignoring intelligence on the imminent Argentine invasion.
3. Scrapped the GLC despite overwhelming desire by the London electorate to keep it (something like 80%). Democracy?
4. Politicised the civil service. Are you saying all these QUANGOS are a good thing?
5. Tax increases on VAT – 8% - 17.5% under Thatcher. Think about that when you fill the car with petrol.
6. The gap between the poor and rich widened. Wealth actually moved from the poorest to the richest!
7. Abolished credit controls. Sounds nice until it triggers a recession, which it did.
8. Race riots in Toxteth, Brixton and St. Pauls. These happened under Thatcher’s watch – a signifier that Britain was splitting into camps of haves and have nots
9. The Poll Tax – need I say more!
10. Crime rates doubled under Thatch, which is ironic seeing as her party claim to be the party of law and order.
SuitsBlue
Player Valuation: £50m
imagine the problems tackled in the 80's hadnt been (coal, cars) and that the tax payer had continued to float the respective businesses until the 90's where tackling the problems then would have hurt as much if not more.
she got the rebate from europe that was recently bargained away.
she got the rebate from europe that was recently bargained away.
TX Bill
Player Valuation: £80m
That's the entire liberal agenda in a nutshell in our country. It's NEVER your fault. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault for the situation you're in. It's what the left's entire belief system is based upon.
Personal Responsibility? That's a curse word with the left over here.
One of the many items on the liberal agenda here is the creation of a nanny state so that the government can take care of all of your needs and you don't have to. Of course we've gotta pay for all of the government programs so let's tax the people to make it happen.
More government, not less. More welfare programs, not less. Hey, univeral health care for all !!! Of course this isn't an all inclusive list but you get the picture.
Bill's got it spot on, it infects both our countries - lack of personal responsibility. Blame everyone and everything else for your problems rather than yourself.
I watched Sicko last night, there's no doubt he's clever with his presenting of the facts is Mr Moore but he called it spot on. Particularly about the Medical Insurance rip off and the drug adverts that infect the American TV.
I watched Sicko last night, there's no doubt he's clever with his presenting of the facts is Mr Moore but he called it spot on. Particularly about the Medical Insurance rip off and the drug adverts that infect the American TV.
TX Bill
Player Valuation: £80m
I'd be curious to when the phenomenon started (lack of personal responsibility.)
My parents generation (in their mid 60's now) was never like that. But somehow it's crept into my generation and I can't quite make the connection.
But nowadays, it's an absolute fact that you're being politically incorrect to call someone out for not being responsible for themselves.
My parents generation (in their mid 60's now) was never like that. But somehow it's crept into my generation and I can't quite make the connection.
But nowadays, it's an absolute fact that you're being politically incorrect to call someone out for not being responsible for themselves.
DENNIS STEVENS
Player Valuation: £20m
lack of personal responsibility, to my mind, goes hand in hand with lack of self-respect & if you don't respect yourself, you can't respect anybody or anything else. it seems to me these factors have a lot to do with many of society's ills.
- Status