Messages

It's the way you yell 'em.

If you could translate this waffle with less vehement sarcasm, then perhaps you could join in.

Good points, The Watcher, highlighting I think two major sections of our society during those years.

If a man uses his brains (and that includes making important human "connections" in his rise up the ladder - a common derogatory term from "unsuccessful" corners) to achieve fiscal rewards enthusiastically encouraged under a government like Thatcher's... he is a winner.

If he "cannot" - due to a more difficult existence and differring "intelligence" under a government like Thatcher's... he is a loser.

So ultimately Thatcher's Britain was survival of the fittest - as everything of course is, but a more glaring example of it than other leaders promote.

It would be difficult - impossible - for a Prime Minister to cater equally for two vastly different sections of society with so much at stake either side; the majority of voters who want a decent enough job for a viable wage, and the minority of voters who are always hungry for more and benefit the economy (and security) of this country by putting ideas into action.

I'll just add I would not consider myself settled in either corner, merely a person who wants more but for the time being must be content with the decent enough job/viable wage thingy.

You know it's funny, I've just had this argument with someone else so I'm rather charged.

"Groan!"
"Well, who's fault's that?"

It's not a fault though, is it - I'm well aware of the perils of drink the next day, and not being able to drive legally (or even bloody see straight) until late afternoon is a consequence of a good night.

It's not lazy; it's taking control and deciding doing work for someone else will not be possible while the body and mind recovers.

Terrible unprofessional maybe, but then that's me all over.

Heh heh heh!

Read again - in response to The Watcher, not yourself.

;)

Dellheim has the figures, Demonizer has the facts.

This is exactly what I am talking about, and what Margaret Thatcher had an answer for.

To look for what "causes" lack of effort is the fundamental problem - people in general are inclined to look for excuses in many aspects of their lives, and put their failings down to lack of goverment support or direction. Rarely themselves.

If a man breaks his leg and does not get appropriate aid from the NHS, he has cause to complain.

If a man does not put into action his plans and desires, he has no-one to blame but himself.

Did Thatcher's initiatives work? Britain did indeed make substantial headway in stimulating self-employment during the 1980s. From 1979 onward, there was an average net increase of 500 new companies every week. At the giddy height of the boom, in 1987, 45,000 new businesses took off. By the following year, about 11% of the labour force was self-employed; that amounted to more than 3 million entrepreneurs and reflected an increase some six times greater than the rise in self-employment in the previous three decades combined. Between 1983 and 1988 the Business Expansion Scheme helped more than 3,000 companies raise ?750 million. The Enterprise Allowance Scheme helped 325,000 individuals become self-employed. The Loan Guarantee Scheme aided nearly 20,000 businesses from 1981 to 1987, providing ?635 million in loans. The venture-capital industry, which hardly existed before Thatcher's ascent, amounted to more than ?1 billion by 1987. The 1980s saw a proliferation of management buyouts.

But those impressive figures are deceptive; the self-employment initiatives were decidedly flawed. In 1988 the National Audit Office reported that government programs provided funding largely for those who would have become self-employed anyway. One in six entrepreneurs assisted by the Enterprise Allowance Scheme fell by the wayside within a year - perhaps inevitably so. And the new small companies never created enough jobs, because too many of them were one-person shows. The Business Expansion Scheme was much more successful in assisting service businesses than high-tech ventures or, for that matter, manufacturing companies. Many of its greatest beneficiaries, however, were wealthy individuals more interested in a handy tax shelter than in a thriving enterprise culture.

The Thatcher government responded somewhat slowly and belatedly to the problems posed by rising unemployment. And the recession of the late 1980s hurt entrepreneurial businesses along with more-established companies. The initiatives did not provide sufficient employment and opportunities for those who were pushed out of work by recession, retrenchment, and rationalizations.

One can only speculate the percentage of current lifetime claimants if Thatcher had never been in power. The sickness-benefit culture is exploited by the idle - a culture on the increase through lack of effort and not lack of education.

Thatcher may not have been such a success, but her drive and unbending dedication to what she believed would make this country a great force again were noble, admirable and - inevitably - dislikable.

["Economics are the method; the object is to change the soul"]

"Economics are the method; the object is to change the soul"

When Thatcher became prime minister in 1979, unemployment was rampant. As part of a larger effort to reverse Britain's economic decline, she and the Tories began to glorify self-employment. She was convinced that the welfare state, with its promise of cradle-to-grave security, had turned once-industrious Britain into a `dependency culture`.

She believed the revival of Britain hinged on effecting a cultural transformation - turning a socialistic culture into a business-oriented, individualistic `enterprise culture`. She wanted to raise the social status of the entrepreneur and foster positive attitudes toward profit, growth, and moneymaking.

Idle people did not like Margaret Thatcher.

General note: MacKay, why don't you do a forward roll and try and disappear up your own arsehole?

Your lofty state of irritation in this forum is detremental to it... posts like this one drag threads down and ruin decent topics.

If you have nothing more interesting to say than promoting board-censorship, then do shut that tiresomely paranoid hole in your face.

Or why not try another forum?

Oh that's right, you can't hear me - someone tell him, will you?

Thatcher was one of the best leaders this country has ever had.

Advocator of self-responsibility, she remains majorly disliked by those keen to shirk theirs and hide behind unions and the like.

She liberated Britain from socialism.

A woman of action - some might say; a bitch.

Thwack!

Heh heh heh - don't you find that funny, Bob?

I'm on a sickie today - baaad hangover man!

But what's this mind blowing future shocks?

JimBob: master of baiting

"The two times my wife's been a victim of crime, they've been fantastic"

heh heh heh!

"Well?..."

I give up - what IS 25% off ?2?

Demonizer's taxi is late

He ponders where the fish's boundaries lie in regard to off-topic stupidity, boredom and agression

The irony of fish/trollbait is not lost on him either