R.I.P Maggie T

[HERUTILUS]

Hello Rob, Hello Paul,

 

Oh dear, the omnipresent bad manners & intolerance of the left manifests itself yet again! What's the matter lads, a bit peed-off are we because MH saw you off, more than once an' all. Time to grow lads; you should try living in the year 2013 instead of anno-domini 1813.

 

Regards, but not too many

 

H

[Vagabond]

Selling shares of our utilities, back to the people who already owned them, (did you remember to tell Sid?), was a con, and designed to make sure that they ended up being run by individual (foreign) companies

 

John, the con occurred for many years prior to the sale, in that we "the public" didn't see a penny of any profits made from our "public" utilities.

 

Here was a chance to become a shareholder and acquire a bit of wealth - better than leaving your savings in the post office.

 

I bought all the utilities I could lay my hands on. I remember one left winger, a colleague on the Bluebell railway, telling me I was a BF for buying shares that already belonged to me. "That maybe" I said, " and even more foolishly, I bought your shares as well"

He is still pondering that one.

 

Sold all those shares while they were still going up in the post-privatisation euphoria. Many crashed since, or got gobbled up by foreign companies but I didn't make the rules - just played by them;

[gozzer]

I can't blame anyone for trying to "gain a bit of wealth" Dave. The whole idea was to spread the myth of a 'free market', anyone can be a shareholder. The reality was that they would eventually end up in the hands of large companies. The irony being that they were European countries, (Thatcher would have loved that ).

As we've said before Dave, as much as we agree on most things Angling, our political beliefs are much further apart.

I suppose that's one of the good things about angling.

 

John.

Edited April 23, 2013 by gozzer

[Vagabond]

As we've said before Dave, as much as we agree on most things Angling, our political beliefs are much further apart.

I suppose that's one of the good things about angling.

Absolutely, John, but I just wanted to make the point that the "con" was the Left telling people they were buying shares they already owned.

 

The public might have "owned" the shares in theory, but they certainly didn't own them in fact.

 

I'm sure if we lived nearer each other, we could enjoy a day's fishing together and a pint afterwards, politics or no politics.

[Dave H]

"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."....Margaret Thatcher.

 

 

 

I agreed on much Margaret did but there were some terrible acts she did too. She seemed so extremist in many ways on her policies and never really met others half way ( almost totalitarian) that her in her own mind was quite easy to act in such a manner as after all she had become the first lady prime minister and a Tory one too!. But there is such a thing as society and many do need assistance by a government. I think that in itself was a very damaging speech for the Tories and much almost lost connection with the general public

[Steve Walker]

As the priest at her funeral pointed out, that speech is widely misinterpreted. She was not saying "we should not help the needy", she was saying "help for the needy comes from other people, not from some abstract thing called 'society'".

[chesters1]

Its easy to see how it works,labour bankrupts the country looking good ,the cons find the cupboard bare so reign in spending and look bad ,labour get in because the cons look bad and waste the pot the tories amounted looking good and bankrupt the country once more etc etc etc

Theres also more clever ways ,council tax goes into a pot ,the labour gov gives more to labour controlled councils than the others giving the impression labour councils look after their people better ,people in non labour councils if foolish and gullible enough vote labour next time hoping they get better ,unfortunately it back fires when the pot cannot be spread that far because the pot isnt that big once you lavish it on your councils

Maggies well intended help for the poor never stood a chance only the better off poor the lower middle class gained anything ,as for buying your council house good idea but if you can afford any mortgage IMHO your not poor!

What would have been better is to sell 1 council house at the price it costs to build 2 and ring fence it far fairer as well as houses in poor areas are cheaper but so are wages and material costs

Edited April 24, 2013 by chesters1

[gozzer]

As the priest at her funeral pointed out, that speech is widely misinterpreted. She was not saying "we should not help the needy", she was saying "help for the needy comes from other people, not from some abstract thing called 'society'".

 

When we discussed this before Steve, we agreed it was often taken out of context, but I never understood why "other people" are not classed as society.

Society is made up of "other people", all other people. Thatchers idea (IMO) was that if you trivialise 'society', you create individualism, each one out for themselves.

Much easier to control individuals than it is an organised group/society.

 

John.

[Steve Walker]

I think that if she had expressed the same meaning by saying "society is nothing without the individual people who make it up" it might have been less amenable to misinterpretation. Or perhaps she would have been forever quoted as saying "society is nothing"

 

I think what she was getting at is that whether they are blaming it for something or demanding something of it, people talk about "society" as if it is something which exists independently of the actions and decisions and responsibilities of individual people - and I think that abandonment of personal responsibility is something she had a problem with.

[RUDD]

From reading all the posts I have concluded the Prime ministers job is on par with a fishing clubs Match secretary job.

You cant please everyone but get the blame for everything.

 

I am not into politics but over the years have learnt:

 

At the end of the day you never see a poor politician or union leader.

 

No matter which party they are in they could not careless about the People - only their own careers.

 

Being an average earner with an average house and an average family and average car - for some reason I always seem to pay more than average tax somehow or other no matter who is in charge.

 

They say the rich get richer and the poor get poorer - either way middle England pays for it.