In Canada they will help you end your life if you're poor. 🤷♂️
Bloody hell, is this the future?
Help is given to end a life rather than help given so that person can afford to live.
It's cost efficient..
Old people are expensive to maintain. 🤷♂️
Disgusting attitude Madders. You will get old oneday, will you be happy to die then?
I'm being sarcastic.
I'm mocking the shit system that eventually rises out of a centralized bureaucratic mess called government anything.
And, I'm already old.
Maddog said
Dec 15 6:06 PM, 2022
I'm going to add a little more..
For decades people around the world were promised to be "taken care of" if you paid into a system. A system that was always going to collapse under its weight, mismanagement and demographics.
But the political power derived from pandering to folks was too enticing for politicans to ignore for a very good reason. Those promises got folks elected, and the problems of keeping those promises were kicked down the road. It's a giant ponzi scheme. People were lied to but those lies sounded far better than the truth.
So while I see the shit I posted about in Canada as unfortunate, I am hardly surprised by it.
Vita said
Dec 16 3:33 AM, 2022
Incredibly rare 'Ice pancakes' at a Glasgow waterfall.
For decades people around the world were promised to be "taken care of" if you paid into a system. A system that was always going to collapse under its weight, mismanagement and demographics.
But the political power derived from pandering to folks was too enticing for politicans to ignore for a very good reason. Those promises got folks elected, and the problems of keeping those promises were kicked down the road. It's a giant ponzi scheme. People were lied to but those lies sounded far better than the truth.
So while I see the shit I posted about in Canada as unfortunate, I am hardly surprised by it.
There are 13 million more people living on this island than there were 2 generations ago.
If people are working, looking after themselves, and paying into the system throughout their working lives, as they used to, the system would survive and flourish...unfortunately, that's not the case now.
Too many people without the qualities needed allowed in, too many people content to scrounge off the pre and existing work force...which would have included the folk who worked from ages 15 to 65 and older.
We dont yet encourage the old to seek euthanasia, what we do is charge them a fortune for the care they may need when they can no longer care for themselves.
It takes on average 25 years to buy a home, the authorities can take that home away in care home fees in a fraction of that time.
Maddog said
Dec 16 5:42 PM, 2022
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
I'm going to add a little more..
For decades people around the world were promised to be "taken care of" if you paid into a system. A system that was always going to collapse under its weight, mismanagement and demographics.
But the political power derived from pandering to folks was too enticing for politicans to ignore for a very good reason. Those promises got folks elected, and the problems of keeping those promises were kicked down the road. It's a giant ponzi scheme. People were lied to but those lies sounded far better than the truth.
So while I see the shit I posted about in Canada as unfortunate, I am hardly surprised by it.
There are 13 million more people living on this island than there were 2 generations ago.
If people are working, looking after themselves, and paying into the system throughout their working lives, as they used to, the system would survive and flourish...unfortunately, that's not the case now.
Too many people without the qualities needed allowed in, too many people content to scrounge off the pre and existing work force...which would have included the folk who worked from ages 15 to 65 and older.
We dont yet encourage the old to seek euthanasia, what we do is charge them a fortune for the care they may need when they can no longer care for themselves.
It takes on average 25 years to buy a home, the authorities can take that home away in care home fees in a fraction of that time.
More people isn't the problem. You are correct when you mention what kind of people. The system is set up for an ever growing number of people to pay into the system that includes an ever growing number of older people. The younger folks working need to grow at the same pace as the older people not working.
This problem isn't just impacting you, but most of the Western world. Japan and S Korea have extremely low birth rates and aren't very receptive to immigration. They are facing a disaster.
While a higher birth rate is problematic for the planet, it's absolutely necessary for a ponzi scheme run by inept buffoons trying to support an ever increasing older population.
Without birthrate keeping pace, there is only one way to keep the system afloat. Immigration.
Remember, the money workers paid in 20 years ago was spent then. Benefits for older people now, are being paid by current workers.
Syl said
Dec 16 5:57 PM, 2022
Society has worked when the people who earn pay in...the more someone earns the more they should contribute.
If more people are taking out of the pot when they should be putting in...that is hardly the fault of the people who have contributed throughout their working lives.
Immigration is vital when the immigrants are contributing...if they are not, they are just draining an already decreasing pot, not to mention wringing schools, NHS services, and affordable housing dry.
If people choose to scrounge rather than work.....ditto.
We are far too soft on illegals and scroungers, we are also 12 years into a Tory government, who look after the rich better than the workers...which is why the unions are once more flexing their muscles here.
Maddog said
Dec 16 6:49 PM, 2022
Syl wrote:
Society has worked when the people who earn pay in...the more someone earns the more they should contribute.
If more people are taking out of the pot when they should be putting in...that is hardly the fault of the people who have contributed throughout their working lives. Immigration is vital when the immigrants are contributing...if they are not, they are just draining an already decreasing pot, not to mention wringing schools, NHS services, and affordable housing dry. If people choose to scrounge rather than work.....ditto.
We are far too soft on illegals and scroungers, we are also 12 years into a Tory government, who look after the rich better than the workers...which is why the unions are once more flexing their muscles here.
Almost everything works temporarily.
The Canadian system worked quite well too.
The Japanese are no slouches either.
I'm sure you know people that were living beyond their means, and for awhile appeared like they were quite successful. Then they ran out of money.
Many off these government programs are the same way. The wheels don't fall off for decades.
I know a lot of Brits despise the old Iron Lady, but she was absolutely correct when she said "eventually you run out of other people's money".
Syl said
Dec 16 7:58 PM, 2022
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Society has worked when the people who earn pay in...the more someone earns the more they should contribute.
If more people are taking out of the pot when they should be putting in...that is hardly the fault of the people who have contributed throughout their working lives. Immigration is vital when the immigrants are contributing...if they are not, they are just draining an already decreasing pot, not to mention wringing schools, NHS services, and affordable housing dry. If people choose to scrounge rather than work.....ditto.
We are far too soft on illegals and scroungers, we are also 12 years into a Tory government, who look after the rich better than the workers...which is why the unions are once more flexing their muscles here.
Almost everything works temporarily.
The Canadian system worked quite well too.
The Japanese are no slouches either.
I'm sure you know people that were living beyond their means, and for awhile appeared like they were quite successful. Then they ran out of money.
Many off these government programs are the same way. The wheels don't fall off for decades.
I know a lot of Brits despise the old Iron Lady, but she was absolutely correct when she said "eventually you run out of other people's money".
Personally, I couldn't stand Thatcher.
I think you would have had to live here at that time to know the damage she caused....the UK is still suffering because of some of the decisions her government made.
Maddog said
Dec 16 11:59 PM, 2022
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Society has worked when the people who earn pay in...the more someone earns the more they should contribute.
If more people are taking out of the pot when they should be putting in...that is hardly the fault of the people who have contributed throughout their working lives. Immigration is vital when the immigrants are contributing...if they are not, they are just draining an already decreasing pot, not to mention wringing schools, NHS services, and affordable housing dry. If people choose to scrounge rather than work.....ditto.
We are far too soft on illegals and scroungers, we are also 12 years into a Tory government, who look after the rich better than the workers...which is why the unions are once more flexing their muscles here.
Almost everything works temporarily.
The Canadian system worked quite well too.
The Japanese are no slouches either.
I'm sure you know people that were living beyond their means, and for awhile appeared like they were quite successful. Then they ran out of money.
Many off these government programs are the same way. The wheels don't fall off for decades.
I know a lot of Brits despise the old Iron Lady, but she was absolutely correct when she said "eventually you run out of other people's money".
Personally, I couldn't stand Thatcher.
I think you would have had to live here at that time to know the damage she caused....the UK is still suffering because of some of the decisions her government made.
We lived under her cousin, Reagan.
The damage she caused was trying to be financially responsible. People don't like that. Its a terrible way to remain popular. That's why most politicians won't do it.
Maddog said
Dec 17 12:12 AM, 2022
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money".
While a French guy said this about the US almost 200 years ago, it applies to most governments everywhere.
Problem is, they eventually run out of their people's money to bribe their people with.
For awhile they borrow. Now they print it too. Then they hit the wall.
Anonymous said
Dec 17 1:45 PM, 2022
Syl wrote:
Digger wrote:
This has to be one of the saddest, most avoidable, stories I've read so far this year.
Extra help for homeless people has been ordered after a woman took her own life as she lived in a tent with her husband. Angela Winter and her husband Michael were left homeless when they were evicted from her home in Burton-on-Trent, Staffordshire, after they lost their jobs during the coronavirus pandemic.
An inquest into her death heard the couple had often been asked to leave areas where they camped. Mrs Winter became so frustrated that she took a drug overdose in June 2021 following a row with her husband over their living conditions.
Her husband stayed with her body for three days before reporting her death which was later ruled a suicide, StaffordshireLive reports.
No wonder there is such resentment when people who have never contributed a penny here, are looked after far better than others, like this couple, who fell on hard times and were treated so disgustingly.
It's tragic.
Yeah, if you are economic migrant (Albanian criminals for example) you are taken care of like fucking royalty no questions asked - top hotel here you come.
Fuck the homeless and those living under the poverty line who were born here - they don't count (especially if they are white working class).
Phil.
-- Edited by Syl on Saturday 17th of December 2022 06:33:26 PM
Syl said
Dec 17 6:42 PM, 2022
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Society has worked when the people who earn pay in...the more someone earns the more they should contribute.
If more people are taking out of the pot when they should be putting in...that is hardly the fault of the people who have contributed throughout their working lives. Immigration is vital when the immigrants are contributing...if they are not, they are just draining an already decreasing pot, not to mention wringing schools, NHS services, and affordable housing dry. If people choose to scrounge rather than work.....ditto.
We are far too soft on illegals and scroungers, we are also 12 years into a Tory government, who look after the rich better than the workers...which is why the unions are once more flexing their muscles here.
Almost everything works temporarily.
The Canadian system worked quite well too.
The Japanese are no slouches either.
I'm sure you know people that were living beyond their means, and for awhile appeared like they were quite successful. Then they ran out of money.
Many off these government programs are the same way. The wheels don't fall off for decades.
I know a lot of Brits despise the old Iron Lady, but she was absolutely correct when she said "eventually you run out of other people's money".
Personally, I couldn't stand Thatcher.
I think you would have had to live here at that time to know the damage she caused....the UK is still suffering because of some of the decisions her government made.
We lived under her cousin, Reagan.
The damage she caused was trying to be financially responsible. People don't like that. Its a terrible way to remain popular. That's why most politicians won't do it.
She was responsible for closing all the coal mines, she smashed up communities, encouraged greed, and sold off everything that made the UK self sufficient....not to mention all the council houses, which her government failed to replenish.
That was why she was so unpopular here.
Maddog said
Dec 17 10:51 PM, 2022
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Society has worked when the people who earn pay in...the more someone earns the more they should contribute.
If more people are taking out of the pot when they should be putting in...that is hardly the fault of the people who have contributed throughout their working lives. Immigration is vital when the immigrants are contributing...if they are not, they are just draining an already decreasing pot, not to mention wringing schools, NHS services, and affordable housing dry. If people choose to scrounge rather than work.....ditto.
We are far too soft on illegals and scroungers, we are also 12 years into a Tory government, who look after the rich better than the workers...which is why the unions are once more flexing their muscles here.
Almost everything works temporarily.
The Canadian system worked quite well too.
The Japanese are no slouches either.
I'm sure you know people that were living beyond their means, and for awhile appeared like they were quite successful. Then they ran out of money.
Many off these government programs are the same way. The wheels don't fall off for decades.
I know a lot of Brits despise the old Iron Lady, but she was absolutely correct when she said "eventually you run out of other people's money".
Personally, I couldn't stand Thatcher.
I think you would have had to live here at that time to know the damage she caused....the UK is still suffering because of some of the decisions her government made.
We lived under her cousin, Reagan.
The damage she caused was trying to be financially responsible. People don't like that. Its a terrible way to remain popular. That's why most politicians won't do it.
She was responsible for closing all the coal mines, she smashed up communities, encouraged greed, and sold off everything that made the UK self sufficient....not to mention all the council houses, which her government failed to replenish.
That was why she was so unpopular here.
The UK wasn't self sufficient. You were broke. The mines were a litteral money pit.
And the council house is a terrible idea. It ties poor people to a home and they can't move to better areas with more opportunity.
Just because the government was doing something doesn't mean it was working well. That's the problem with government programs. No one cares what they cost, just that they need to continue or your mean amd greedy.
That's not reality.
Digger said
Dec 18 10:18 AM, 2022
Digger said
Dec 18 10:46 AM, 2022
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Society has worked when the people who earn pay in...the more someone earns the more they should contribute.
If more people are taking out of the pot when they should be putting in...that is hardly the fault of the people who have contributed throughout their working lives. Immigration is vital when the immigrants are contributing...if they are not, they are just draining an already decreasing pot, not to mention wringing schools, NHS services, and affordable housing dry. If people choose to scrounge rather than work.....ditto.
We are far too soft on illegals and scroungers, we are also 12 years into a Tory government, who look after the rich better than the workers...which is why the unions are once more flexing their muscles here.
Almost everything works temporarily.
The Canadian system worked quite well too.
The Japanese are no slouches either.
I'm sure you know people that were living beyond their means, and for awhile appeared like they were quite successful. Then they ran out of money.
Many off these government programs are the same way. The wheels don't fall off for decades.
I know a lot of Brits despise the old Iron Lady, but she was absolutely correct when she said "eventually you run out of other people's money".
Personally, I couldn't stand Thatcher.
I think you would have had to live here at that time to know the damage she caused....the UK is still suffering because of some of the decisions her government made.
We lived under her cousin, Reagan.
The damage she caused was trying to be financially responsible. People don't like that. Its a terrible way to remain popular. That's why most politicians won't do it.
She was responsible for closing all the coal mines, she smashed up communities, encouraged greed, and sold off everything that made the UK self sufficient....not to mention all the council houses, which her government failed to replenish.
That was why she was so unpopular here.
The UK wasn't self sufficient. You were broke. The mines were a litteral money pit.
And the council house is a terrible idea. It ties poor people to a home and they can't move to better areas with more opportunity.
Just because the government was doing something doesn't mean it was working well. That's the problem with government programs. No one cares what they cost, just that they need to continue or your mean amd greedy.
That's not reality.
I have to agree with you, Maddog. The UK was financially on its knees when Thatcher took over and she had the balls to stand up to the power of the Unions and smash their autonomy. She stood up to the Argentinians and won the Falklands war. She was the reason the Anglo Irish Peace Agreement got signed. It had to be done. She did make mistakes, the worst one being privatisation of public services but I think it's only now we can look back and see that she did what a good leader should, made unpopular decisions. I mean, look what we have now. Weak, woke and useless.
Through the right to buy scheme Thatcher gave some of the poorest and previously disenfranchised people in society a way to buy their own homes. My mum was one of them. Council tenants who had never even thought of owning their own homes were free to become homeowners, thus letting aspirational, hard working people improve their security and increase their wealth by owning property.
When she became prime minister in 1979, the top tax rate was 98%; the bottom rate 65%. By 1990 that had changed to 40% and 25%.
But people always seem to forget any good she did. Show me one politician who ever made popular decisions all the time.
As for the decline in manufacturing, I think that was inevitable due to the demand for cheaper goods being made abroad. Place the full blame there on the public demand for more affordable everything. And that still applies. Will we ever stop buying from China? Even if they exercise the most appalling human rights? Will we fuck. Most of us of a certain age remember how expensive electrical goods were, for instance. In the 1970's hardly anyone had a colour TV, by the 80s when cheaper imports started nearly everyone did.
Syl said
Dec 18 1:17 PM, 2022
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Society has worked when the people who earn pay in...the more someone earns the more they should contribute.
If more people are taking out of the pot when they should be putting in...that is hardly the fault of the people who have contributed throughout their working lives. Immigration is vital when the immigrants are contributing...if they are not, they are just draining an already decreasing pot, not to mention wringing schools, NHS services, and affordable housing dry. If people choose to scrounge rather than work.....ditto.
We are far too soft on illegals and scroungers, we are also 12 years into a Tory government, who look after the rich better than the workers...which is why the unions are once more flexing their muscles here.
Almost everything works temporarily.
The Canadian system worked quite well too.
The Japanese are no slouches either.
I'm sure you know people that were living beyond their means, and for awhile appeared like they were quite successful. Then they ran out of money.
Many off these government programs are the same way. The wheels don't fall off for decades.
I know a lot of Brits despise the old Iron Lady, but she was absolutely correct when she said "eventually you run out of other people's money".
Personally, I couldn't stand Thatcher.
I think you would have had to live here at that time to know the damage she caused....the UK is still suffering because of some of the decisions her government made.
We lived under her cousin, Reagan.
The damage she caused was trying to be financially responsible. People don't like that. Its a terrible way to remain popular. That's why most politicians won't do it.
She was responsible for closing all the coal mines, she smashed up communities, encouraged greed, and sold off everything that made the UK self sufficient....not to mention all the council houses, which her government failed to replenish.
That was why she was so unpopular here.
The UK wasn't self sufficient. You were broke. The mines were a litteral money pit.
And the council house is a terrible idea. It ties poor people to a home and they can't move to better areas with more opportunity.
Just because the government was doing something doesn't mean it was working well. That's the problem with government programs. No one cares what they cost, just that they need to continue or your mean amd greedy.
That's not reality.
Reality is millions of people not able to afford to keep warm or feed their kids properly in 2022.
Once we had our own industries, steel, fabrics,coal. I come from a part of the country that was once filled with mills and industry....now everything is imported.
Wasn't it you who said you had no sympathy for the UK because we were importing our fuel instead of supplying our own? ?
When we manufactured our own goods, instead of importing cheaper crap from China, goods would last a lifetime...now it's a throwaway society because everything is knackered after a few short years.
Thatcher did encourage people to buy their own homes. Like Digger said, it enabled many people who lived in rented social housing the chance to buy cheaply....great for them, not so great for the people who needed a council house after she had sold them all off. That began the rise of huge rent increases for private renters, and millions left in negative equity when they took her advice, bought, and were left in huge debt because the cost of living was soaring....just as it is now.
Maddog said
Dec 18 5:08 PM, 2022
The UK had rightfully owned the title "sick man of Europe" by the end of the 70's.
That was down to a lot of bad decisions, many of which were centered around the government trying to run everything.
People think the cost of something (like a train ticket) is simply what you spend to purchase it. That's completely incorrect. The cost is what is spent for the purchase and any subsidies paid through obscene rates of taxation..
Coal mines are a good example. They were closed because they needed government subsidies to stay open. It's supposed to be the other way around. A mining company should not need taxpayer welfare and should be profitable enough to pay taxes. Or close..
Vintage said
Dec 18 10:39 PM, 2022
I've lived in rented houses until my early 30's. The rents were affordable but you had to work pretty hard to afford them. My father worked 5 days a week but sometimes 7 days a week for a few weeks in summer (fire fighting in the forestry). My mother was a housewife but had to take in washing or cleaning other peoples houses so we just about managed from week to week, rarely was there excess money. Just about all we had, usually second hand, was Made In Britain and built to last. If you could manage to save the interest was good, when I first married for a number of years we managed to save with good interest, once the interest plummeted people who could turned to property to rent and the rents went from affordable to ridiculous add the demand for homes because of Tony Blair and his vision of open door immigration and 'changing the face of Britain' - here we are.
We have many mines in the vicinity that I live in, all closed of course but the majority were closed by Labour long before Thatcher, why would anyone close a going concern that's making money? We have, I think a degree only slightly above slave labour, working in mines in China and other countries that made it profitable to import inferior coal into Britain, the same happened with the textile industry and many others, no solidarity with fellow workers then, the majority of people just want a cheap alternative and the owners just want a fat profit.
.
Disgusting attitude Madders. You will get old oneday, will you be happy to die then?
Probably because old people need more health care.
The fact that many old people have paid into the system for the last 55 plus years seems not to matter.
I'm being sarcastic.
I'm mocking the shit system that eventually rises out of a centralized bureaucratic mess called government anything.
And, I'm already old.
For decades people around the world were promised to be "taken care of" if you paid into a system. A system that was always going to collapse under its weight, mismanagement and demographics.
But the political power derived from pandering to folks was too enticing for politicans to ignore for a very good reason. Those promises got folks elected, and the problems of keeping those promises were kicked down the road. It's a giant ponzi scheme. People were lied to but those lies sounded far better than the truth.
So while I see the shit I posted about in Canada as unfortunate, I am hardly surprised by it.
Incredibly rare 'Ice pancakes' at a Glasgow waterfall.
Incredibly rare ‘ice pancakes’ form at Glasgow waterfall ahead of heavy snow & blizzards this weekend | The Scottish Sun
There are 13 million more people living on this island than there were 2 generations ago.
If people are working, looking after themselves, and paying into the system throughout their working lives, as they used to, the system would survive and flourish...unfortunately, that's not the case now.
Too many people without the qualities needed allowed in, too many people content to scrounge off the pre and existing work force...which would have included the folk who worked from ages 15 to 65 and older.
We dont yet encourage the old to seek euthanasia, what we do is charge them a fortune for the care they may need when they can no longer care for themselves.
It takes on average 25 years to buy a home, the authorities can take that home away in care home fees in a fraction of that time.
More people isn't the problem. You are correct when you mention what kind of people. The system is set up for an ever growing number of people to pay into the system that includes an ever growing number of older people. The younger folks working need to grow at the same pace as the older people not working.
This problem isn't just impacting you, but most of the Western world. Japan and S Korea have extremely low birth rates and aren't very receptive to immigration. They are facing a disaster.
While a higher birth rate is problematic for the planet, it's absolutely necessary for a ponzi scheme run by inept buffoons trying to support an ever increasing older population.
Without birthrate keeping pace, there is only one way to keep the system afloat. Immigration.
Remember, the money workers paid in 20 years ago was spent then. Benefits for older people now, are being paid by current workers.
If more people are taking out of the pot when they should be putting in...that is hardly the fault of the people who have contributed throughout their working lives.
Immigration is vital when the immigrants are contributing...if they are not, they are just draining an already decreasing pot, not to mention wringing schools, NHS services, and affordable housing dry.
If people choose to scrounge rather than work.....ditto.
We are far too soft on illegals and scroungers, we are also 12 years into a Tory government, who look after the rich better than the workers...which is why the unions are once more flexing their muscles here.
Almost everything works temporarily.
The Canadian system worked quite well too.
The Japanese are no slouches either.
I'm sure you know people that were living beyond their means, and for awhile appeared like they were quite successful. Then they ran out of money.
Many off these government programs are the same way. The wheels don't fall off for decades.
I know a lot of Brits despise the old Iron Lady, but she was absolutely correct when she said "eventually you run out of other people's money".
Personally, I couldn't stand Thatcher.
I think you would have had to live here at that time to know the damage she caused....the UK is still suffering because of some of the decisions her government made.
We lived under her cousin, Reagan.
The damage she caused was trying to be financially responsible. People don't like that. Its a terrible way to remain popular. That's why most politicians won't do it.
While a French guy said this about the US almost 200 years ago, it applies to most governments everywhere.
Problem is, they eventually run out of their people's money to bribe their people with.
For awhile they borrow. Now they print it too. Then they hit the wall.
Yeah, if you are economic migrant (Albanian criminals for example) you are taken care of like fucking royalty no questions asked - top hotel here you come.
Fuck the homeless and those living under the poverty line who were born here - they don't count (especially if they are white working class).
Phil.
-- Edited by Syl on Saturday 17th of December 2022 06:33:26 PM
She was responsible for closing all the coal mines, she smashed up communities, encouraged greed, and sold off everything that made the UK self sufficient....not to mention all the council houses, which her government failed to replenish.
That was why she was so unpopular here.
The UK wasn't self sufficient. You were broke. The mines were a litteral money pit.
And the council house is a terrible idea. It ties poor people to a home and they can't move to better areas with more opportunity.
Just because the government was doing something doesn't mean it was working well. That's the problem with government programs. No one cares what they cost, just that they need to continue or your mean amd greedy.
That's not reality.
I have to agree with you, Maddog. The UK was financially on its knees when Thatcher took over and she had the balls to stand up to the power of the Unions and smash their autonomy. She stood up to the Argentinians and won the Falklands war. She was the reason the Anglo Irish Peace Agreement got signed. It had to be done. She did make mistakes, the worst one being privatisation of public services but I think it's only now we can look back and see that she did what a good leader should, made unpopular decisions. I mean, look what we have now. Weak, woke and useless.
Through the right to buy scheme Thatcher gave some of the poorest and previously disenfranchised people in society a way to buy their own homes. My mum was one of them. Council tenants who had never even thought of owning their own homes were free to become homeowners, thus letting aspirational, hard working people improve their security and increase their wealth by owning property.
When she became prime minister in 1979, the top tax rate was 98%; the bottom rate 65%. By 1990 that had changed to 40% and 25%.
But people always seem to forget any good she did. Show me one politician who ever made popular decisions all the time.
As for the decline in manufacturing, I think that was inevitable due to the demand for cheaper goods being made abroad. Place the full blame there on the public demand for more affordable everything. And that still applies. Will we ever stop buying from China? Even if they exercise the most appalling human rights? Will we fuck. Most of us of a certain age remember how expensive electrical goods were, for instance. In the 1970's hardly anyone had a colour TV, by the 80s when cheaper imports started nearly everyone did.
Reality is millions of people not able to afford to keep warm or feed their kids properly in 2022.
Once we had our own industries, steel, fabrics,coal. I come from a part of the country that was once filled with mills and industry....now everything is imported.
Wasn't it you who said you had no sympathy for the UK because we were importing our fuel instead of supplying our own? ?
When we manufactured our own goods, instead of importing cheaper crap from China, goods would last a lifetime...now it's a throwaway society because everything is knackered after a few short years.
Thatcher did encourage people to buy their own homes. Like Digger said, it enabled many people who lived in rented social housing the chance to buy cheaply....great for them, not so great for the people who needed a council house after she had sold them all off. That began the rise of huge rent increases for private renters, and millions left in negative equity when they took her advice, bought, and were left in huge debt because the cost of living was soaring....just as it is now.
That was down to a lot of bad decisions, many of which were centered around the government trying to run everything.
People think the cost of something (like a train ticket) is simply what you spend to purchase it. That's completely incorrect. The cost is what is spent for the purchase and any subsidies paid through obscene rates of taxation..
Coal mines are a good example. They were closed because they needed government subsidies to stay open. It's supposed to be the other way around. A mining company should not need taxpayer welfare and should be profitable enough to pay taxes. Or close..
We have many mines in the vicinity that I live in, all closed of course but the majority were closed by Labour long before Thatcher, why would anyone close a going concern that's making money? We have, I think a degree only slightly above slave labour, working in mines in China and other countries that made it profitable to import inferior coal into Britain, the same happened with the textile industry and many others, no solidarity with fellow workers then, the majority of people just want a cheap alternative and the owners just want a fat profit.
.