Thatcher Dead.

Status
Not open for further replies.


I disagree, I think. Most people think welfare got out of control and there are those who think only in terms on entitlement without thinking of those who have to meet an obligation to give it to them.

I think her evil lay purely in her total lack of compassion. Would she see a 5 year old go hungry because the parents chose to spend the money on tabs and drink? Yes she would, and not lose a wink of sleep. She had a sort of compassion autism.

Welfare spiraled out of control directly as a result of her policies. The post-war consensus that she shit on was all about maintaining as near to full employment as possible. She destroyed industry and manufacturing, resulting in mass unemployment that hundreds of communities are still to recover from. Ultimately she used the welfare state as a crutch to support tax cuts and her war on the unions. I'm surprised it' taken 25 years for people to finally cotton on to this.
 
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is 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 to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

Enough context?

Cant see why anyone would argue with that?
 
okay agreed, and now what. a bottle of milk a day doesn't resolve what you ask. irrelevant of her, how do you do it?[/QUOTE

Personally? I'd do everything Aneurin Bevan suggested be done. And not think too much about the PRICE.
 
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is 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 to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

Enough context?

I forget who said this first but it was a male conservative politician, and it was part of a journal.

All she is saying in a roundabout way is this: the government can't save you.

Nothing to do with there being no 'society' in terms of a group of people who share knowledge, ideas etc. It actually states: "it's our duty to look after our neighbour".

Small government is a trait of Conservatism and Classical Liberalism, and like all conservatives she is stating a case for private charity and individual responsibility. She is not making a case against the 'community'; in fact it is a conservative trait to believe passionately in community. What she means by 'society' is looking to the nanny state to save you.
 
Cant see why anyone would argue with that?

because we were undercut by globalisation for one.

okay agreed, and now what. a bottle of milk a day doesn't resolve what you ask. irrelevant of her, how do you do it?[/QUOTE

Personally? I'd do everything Aneurin Bevan suggested be done. And not think too much about the PRICE.

but sadly things do cost. if outgoings > income then we ae fucked. that is a fact.
 
because we were undercut by globalisation for one.

but sadly things do cost. if outgoings > income then we ae fucked. that is a fact.

Well how about this. Everyone who is a director of a limited company is no longer allowed to use the tax loophole of paying themselves minimum wage and then taking the rest of their salary as dividend, thereby only paying 10% tax. Or how about Amazon pay tax? and we use that money for free school dinners and free university places for the children of the less well off. Think of it as a rebalancing rather than increased spending.
 
because we were undercut by globalisation for one.



Well how about this. Everyone who is a director of a limited company is no longer allowed to use the tax loophole of paying themselves minimum wage and then taking the rest of their salary as dividend, thereby only paying 10% tax. Or how about Amazon pay tax? and we use that money for free school dinners and free university places for the children of the less well off. Think of it as a rebalancing rather than increased spending.

Good post!
 
because we were undercut by globalisation for one.



Well how about this. Everyone who is a director of a limited company is no longer allowed to use the tax loophole of paying themselves minimum wage and then taking the rest of their salary as dividend, thereby only paying 10% tax. Or how about Amazon pay tax? and we use that money for free school dinners and free university places for the children of the less well off. Think of it as a rebalancing rather than increased spending.

agreed. 100%. think they won't fuck off for a tenner though? after all they hav an obligation to shareholders.

be nice if the MP's set an example though.
 
I forget who said this first but it was a male conservative politician, and it was part of a journal.

All she is saying in a roundabout way is this: the government can't save you.

Nothing to do with there being no 'society' in terms of a group of people who share knowledge, ideas etc. It actually states: "it's our duty to look after our neighbour".

Small government is a trait of Conservatism and Classical Liberalism, and like all conservatives she is stating a case for private charity and individual responsibility. She is not making a case against the 'community'; in fact it is a conservative trait to believe passionately in community. What she means by 'society' is looking to the nanny state to save you.

So she did say it?
 
because we were undercut by globalisation for one.



Well how about this. Everyone who is a director of a limited company is no longer allowed to use the tax loophole of paying themselves minimum wage and then taking the rest of their salary as dividend, thereby only paying 10% tax. Or how about Amazon pay tax? and we use that money for free school dinners and free university places for the children of the less well off. Think of it as a rebalancing rather than increased spending.

I'd vote for you :cool:
 
I forget who said this first but it was a male conservative politician, and it was part of a journal.

All she is saying in a roundabout way is this: the government can't save you.

Nothing to do with there being no 'society' in terms of a group of people who share knowledge, ideas etc. It actually states: "it's our duty to look after our neighbour".

Small government is a trait of Conservatism and Classical Liberalism, and like all conservatives she is stating a case for private charity and individual responsibility. She is not making a case against the 'community'; in fact it is a conservative trait to believe passionately in community. What she means by 'society' is looking to the nanny state to save you.


OK. In that case she was being completely disingenuous. "You should all look out for yourselves first, THEN help others. In the meantime I'm going to sell off all the assets you and your fellow countrymen own, and crush anyone who wants to stand up and fight me, thus rendering you fatally incable of doing what I've just prooposed.".
 
I forget who said this first but it was a male conservative politician, and it was part of a journal.

All she is saying in a roundabout way is this: the government can't save you.

Nothing to do with there being no 'society' in terms of a group of people who share knowledge, ideas etc. It actually states: "it's our duty to look after our neighbour".

Small government is a trait of Conservatism and Classical Liberalism, and like all conservatives she is stating a case for private charity and individual responsibility. She is not making a case against the 'community'; in fact it is a conservative trait to believe passionately in community. What she means by 'society' is looking to the nanny state to save you.

What university are you currently studying politics at btw?
 
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is 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 to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

Enough context?
'I'm homeless, the government must house me.'
To be fair she is saying that the government shouldn't have the responsibilty to house the homeless, which as i seem to remember she delivered on in spades.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top