... but not everyone shares your ideals... that's what makes the world go round.
Baroness Margaret Thatcher has Passed Away
- Thread starter Drifter
- Start date
Agreed, however there's one thing called 'empathy' that Thatcher had none of, at all. She didn't care even one little bit. That's what made her a cnut.
You like the C word, dont you ?
Who gave him the "attention seeking chancer" tag?
Why don't you argue your side instead of being arsey about it? Do you believe that government should provide jobs for the unemployed? If so, why?
The government represents ...all of us.
Its role is to ensure at least in part we have a healthy economic environment to create jobs. Certainly I believe having as little unemployment as possible is good for the whole country.
To say as some have suggested that you have welfare and NHS so why worry...is just not being realistic.
Its role is to ensure at least in part we have a healthy economic environment to create jobs. Certainly I believe having as little unemployment as possible is good for the whole country.
To say as some have suggested that you have welfare and NHS so why worry...is just not being realistic.
I believe that full employment should be a goal of any civilised government, as it once was across the Western world. If you have to ask why perhaps you should try being unemployed for a time. And neither of us were being arsey, we were just mocking your ridiculous arrogance in proclaiming your political opinion as if it were a physical law.
It's like the time he said he believes in United. Before proceeding to shut the tv off.
Full employment? Even at the height of the ecconomic boom there was 4% unemployment.
Government propping up a failing industry is completely unrealistic, if an organisation knows it is under written why would it bother putting in the work to improve and maximise efficiency and profitability?
Sort of ironic to be discussing subsiding pits when so many people are calling for governments to abandon banks and allow them to fail because they don't want their taxes supporting essentially failed institutions.
No one is entitled to a job or a living in a capitalist society.
Government propping up a failing industry is completely unrealistic, if an organisation knows it is under written why would it bother putting in the work to improve and maximise efficiency and profitability?
Sort of ironic to be discussing subsiding pits when so many people are calling for governments to abandon banks and allow them to fail because they don't want their taxes supporting essentially failed institutions.
No one is entitled to a job or a living in a capitalist society.
Full employment doesn't literally mean everyone has a job, for feck's sake.
Nobody is 'entitled to a living'? So you're going the full Mitt Romney then. Would you kindly provide a list of the things you think people are entitled to in one of the richest societies in the entire history of humanity.
Don't know, don't care what Mitt Romneys position is, but thats not strictly what I said is it? No one's entitled to a job or a living.... People are absoutely entitled to make a living for themselves but no one is entitled to a living in a capitalist society, its sort of how capitalism works.
So what are they entitled to then?
A whole range of things.... for the rest of society to support a failing industry to provide them with a job they think they're entitled to isn't one of them.
So if sufficient jobs could be found for everyone outside of 'failing industries' then the government could provide them for everyone?
I thought I read somewhere that there is more coal being dug out of the ground now than ever before.
I'm not sure I understand your question.
It may well be, thats not to say back in the 70's and 80's it was an industry making money, if you're not making money you're failing. Of course you can become more efficient through changing work practises but thats where the unions come in.
Now that they have buried her, at least I can honestly say I wish she was still alive.
Unless its in farming which we still subsidise and have every year from MT time in office.
I'm trying to get at the core justification for your belief that the government should have no responsibility to provide employment for its citizens. You seem to oscillate between thinking it wrong on some instinctive moral level and then claiming it's a problem because of inefficiency.
I don't remember saying the government had no responsibility to provide employment.
There's no such thing as society though. Isn't that what Thatcher said ?
So it comes down to the government. If they're going to shut off - at a stroke - the way a community earns a living. Surely they have more than just a moral obligation to seek ways to provide alternatives. As we all know, Margaret Thatcher basically left millions of people on the scrapheap without a shit being given on her part.
The word 'entitled' suggests that it's something you are due regardless of effort or circumstance.
Did the government do enough to fill the void left by closures? No they didn't. But that's a different argument to saying loss making businesses should have been propped up by the state.
She might be. I always suspected she was one of the undead.
they were not 'entitled' to a job though
...in more ways than one....
She did, and that she wasn't just spouting shite. It was that view that underpinned the dismemberment and destruction of the NHS.
You love to put words into people's mouths and make huge assumptions about them too. FYI I was unemployed during Thatcher's heyday in the mid 1980's and I was on YTS for a while and the dole too. I've lived it and so have a pretty good idea what I'm talking about. I was around and experienced the Winter of Discontent and the end of the Callaghan government too. Since we're requiring personal qualifications to decide who's opinions are worthy why don't you tell us what it is about your background that makes your opinion more valid than mine?
My belief in my opinion may be arrogant to you, but at least I provide reasoning for it rather than pathetic ad hominems and straw man arguments. You just keep posting a bunch of platitudes and claiming that anybody who can't see why they are amazing and earth-shattering in importance and originality must be stupid, arrogant, callous or worse.
I expect more of the same to be frank after seeing your interactions with Eyepopper and the same 'debate' techniques.
Also a young one.
Don't care much about her policies one way or the other - as MuM has said, all politicians have good and bad.
It was her condescending, arrogant, attitude that got me. The lady wasn't for turning. Maybe she's for burning though?
It was her way, or no way. No politician should be so intransigent. That's not strength, that's dictatorial.
Can't deny that, Livvie !