S10mainly Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 The Left hate Thatcher (who Im no fan-boy for) simply because she destroyed them once and for ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 It's been remarked on a few times Anna - whenever the Left get faced with a difficult question they always reach for the tin marked Thatcher, bitch, cow, witch, and followed with the phrase "I can't wait till she dies" Can you imagine the outcry if anyone said "I hope that one eyed Scot goes blind" ? Of course you can, and it's not going to happen, so why is the Left so enamoured of resorting to blind vindictive hate? Are they really such nasty people? I have never said anything of the sort, and take exception to the accusation. For your information you will find previous posts where I have praised Mrs Thatcher for her strength and integrity - it's her politics I hate. As for the left name calling - pot, kettle and black spring to mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Seemingly nothing of importance or that made sense. Could you elaborate a little? Here's a clue from post 96. No, nobody has ever seen this supposed letter and to be honest, the article is from the Telegraph so I'd expect nothing less and it's highly probable that any similar story on the subject is taken from the torygraph article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tradescanthia Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Not all jobs can simply replace skilled people with someone off the street. And the reason that unions formed originally is still valid, so that the workers collectively have bargaining power with their employer. As individuals they are very weak, as a group they are stronger. If only more people shared your view................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 The truth is that there are simply not enough jobs that pay a living wage. And in my opinion, what with a shrinking economy, automation, and jobs going abroad there never will be again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 The truth is that there are simply not enough jobs that pay a living wage. And in my opinion, what with a shrinking economy, automation, and jobs going abroad there never will be again. So, you think that we'll have more and more people who have to rely on benefits, as the number of decently waged jobs decreases. Therefore even fewer workers will have to pay ever increasing taxes to fund those on benefits. Yet we still seem to pay more benefits to those having increasing numbers of children, that they can't support themselves !! Time to cap child benefit, paying it only for the first 2 children. Time to tighten up on immigration also. Probably time to become a little protectionist with regards to offshore jobs as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 So, you think that we'll have more and more people who have to rely on benefits, as the number of decently waged jobs decreases. Therefore even fewer workers will have to pay ever increasing taxes to fund those on benefits. Yet we still seem to pay more benefits to those having increasing numbers of children, that they can't support themselves !! Time to cap child benefit, paying it only for the first 2 children. Time to tighten up on immigration also. Probably time to become a little protectionist with regards to offshore jobs as well. I think we'll have to have a radical rethink. I'm not sure how we'll be able to change things, but remember that if 10 cars are made by 10 men or 1 robot the end result is still 10 cars to sell, so if they are made by 1 robot then profits, exports etc will actually go up. I agree with you on capping child benefit to 2 children, and limiting immigration, and other sensible measures. I'd also personally like to see one parent at home when the children are small, and less reliance on nurseries. I'd like to see all jobs become job share, employing 2 people instead of one. I haven't really thought it through but I do realise that it would bring with it lots of problems, it's merely a starting point. Unless we find a way of sharing out the work we will become a nation divided by those who have work and money, and those who do not. This will undoubtedly lead to some very expensive social problems - so I ask, can we afford not to do it? When my Dad started work many years ago the normal working week was about 48hours. That has reduced to 38 hours without loss of income. We also found a way to absorb women, who up until 40 years ago stayed at home when married, into the workplace, so change can happen with the right will and proper management. We were promised a future with more leisure, maybe it's time to find a way to make it happen for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I think we'll have to have a radical rethink. I'm not sure how we'll be able to change things, but remember that if 10 cars are made by 10 men or 1 robot the end result is still 10 cars to sell, so if they are made by 1 robot then profits, exports etc will actually go up. I agree with you on capping child benefit to 2 children, and limiting immigration, and other sensible measures. I'd also personally like to see one parent at home when the children are small, and less reliance on nurseries. I'd like to see all jobs become job share, employing 2 people instead of one. I haven't really thought it through but I do realise that it would bring with it lots of problems, it's merely a starting point. Unless we find a way of sharing out the work we will become a nation divided by those who have work and money, and those who do not. This will undoubtedly lead to some very expensive social problems - so I ask, can we afford not to do it? When my Dad started work many years ago the normal working week was about 48hours. That has reduced to 38 hours without loss of income. We also found a way to absorb women, who up until 40 years ago stayed at home when married, into the workplace, so change can happen with the right will and proper management. We were promised a future with more leisure, maybe it's time to find a way to make it happen for all. The consequences of more women entering the work place was households having more disposable income. Food, energy, house prices are driven in part by people’s ability to pay for them, so more families with more money just allowed prices can go up without affecting their ability to pay for them, so it now takes two incomes to buy what used to take just one income to buy. The high cost of living is the fault of women for wanting to go to work instead of stay at home. If everyone in the country was given a 100% pay rise tomorrow, it would take long for everything we buy to increase by 100% leaving us no better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 More people entering the work force would drive inflation to some extent, but it also makes every individual household more productive in economic terms, and as the country gets more economically productive we all benefit, even after inflation is taken into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 More people entering the work force would drive inflation to some extent, but it also makes every individual household more productive in economic terms, and as the country gets more economically productive we all benefit, even after inflation is taken into account. I don’t think a single income household would feel the benefits of all the extra income generated by the two income households, I suspect they would find it more difficult to compete when it comes to buying or renting a house. There would however be significant benefits if every household had at least one person in employment, but the only way to achieve that would be to cut the number of households with two or more people in employment. It shouldn’t be about spreading the wealth around, it should be about spreading the work around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.