Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corporeal on Lady Thatcher

SystemSystem Posts: 12,179
edited April 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corporeal on Lady Thatcher

With the passing of Margaret Thatcher, many obituaries have been written (or at least dusted off and had the dates filled in) alongside as many pieces about her time in power and that word that hangs over every politician, legacy.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • First!
  • mosesmoses Posts: 45
    tim said:

    @YouGov: UPDATE: Labour lead at 11 - Latest YouGov / The Sun results 17th April - CON 30%, LAB 41%, LD 10%, UKIP 12%; APP -31 http://t.co/NAk8u4DKXI

    No longer makes a difference. You are still going to lose....... And in your heart you already know it.

  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    tim said:

    Poll on Thatcherism

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/04/17/legacy-of-thatcherism/

    Most interesting finding is probably this



    "On the 'Right to Buy', Thatcherism is outnumbered: 49% say tenants of social housing should not have the right to buy their homes, compared to 42% who say they should."

    I suspect this is now tainted by the failure to replace housing stock rather than the principle

    Interesting also that it's one of the Thatcherite policies most strongly supported by Lab voters, and least by Con voters.
  • redcliffe62redcliffe62 Posts: 342
    moses said:

    tim said:

    @YouGov: UPDATE: Labour lead at 11 - Latest YouGov / The Sun results 17th April - CON 30%, LAB 41%, LD 10%, UKIP 12%; APP -31 http://t.co/NAk8u4DKXI

    No longer makes a difference. You are still going to lose....... And in your heart you already know it.

    If you think Labour will lose in 2015 then give Tim a bet; I am sure he will be happy to take your money.

  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    @redcliffe62 & @tim no point asking moses anything, he's been banned
  • redcliffe62redcliffe62 Posts: 342
    edited April 2013
    tim said:

    @YouGov: UPDATE: Labour lead at 11 - Latest YouGov / The Sun results 17th April - CON 30%, LAB 41%, LD 10%, UKIP 12%; APP -31 http://t.co/NAk8u4DKXI

    Unsurprisingly The Sun didnt tweet that last night.

    That the Tories got rid of Thatcher as she was an electoral libility by her sunset political years time is on the record. The public never got the chance to show their support or lack thereof.

    When a female leader turns the women off as well as the men there is no way back. Gillard is suffering the same fate but Labour in Oz although helpless at 29% primary suport are unsure how to remove her. Even with 2nd preferences it is a 57-43 split with a loss of huge numbers of seats which is massive in Oz political standards.
    And women now almost supporting the opposition as much as the men. So different to when she first came in, when we all hoped if not quite believed she might be an innovator.

    Being stubborn and not prepared to listen to her cabinet let alone the country are not virtues in my eyes. And that will be Thatcher and Gillard's legacy.

  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,773
    Wouldn't normally link the explosion in Texas with the events in Boston, but it is in Waco...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,888
    I've worked in a large chemical plant that dealt with dangerous chemicals (e.g. acetone and ether), and these things happen. I'd make no link with terrorism or Waco.

    When I was 17 I worked in the immediate clear-up of a very large fire, with minor explosions, trying to get ready to get some of that part of the plant working once again. I'll never forget some of the scenes. Fortunately no-one got injured or killed, which was bit of a miracle.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,773

    I've worked in a large chemical plant that dealt with dangerous chemicals (e.g. acetone and ether), and these things happen. I'd make no link with terrorism or Waco.

    When I was 17 I worked in the immediate clear-up of a very large fire, with minor explosions, trying to get ready to get some of that part of the plant working once again. I'll never forget some of the scenes. Fortunately no-one got injured or killed, which was bit of a miracle.

    You're probably totally correct. Just both the location and the date is somewhat noticable
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,756
    There are two crucial things necessary if a leader's going to be stubborn and in 'transmit only' mode for them to be successful: firstly, the cost causing the criticism has to be outweighed by the benefits within a year or two; and secondly, they have to have an inner cadre who are prepared to fight with them.

    Thatcher was right in the early 80s to go against the post-war corporatist consensus on union reform but as Corporeal makes clear in his leader, she also picked her fights carefully. The reason why she's regarded as stubborn is that she rarely did back down *in public* or U-turn, but that's mainly because she worked out what was achievable in advance; it wasn't because her policies of the day necessarily represented what she wanted to ultimately achieve.

    Likewise with the pace of change. By the end of her first parliament, virtually every state-owned and -run industry remained with the DTI. The big privatisations came after 1983. The top rate of tax at that election - and at the next one - was 60%. It didn't come down to 40% until 1988, nine years after she came to power.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,930
    Just a little Thatchered out after yesterday but the Drive program played a clip yesterday of Thatcher describing Thatcherism to Robin Day. She said:

    "Let me tell you what it stands for. It stands for sound finance and Government running the affairs of the nation in a sound financial way. It stands for honest money—not inflation. It stands for living within your means. It stands for incentives because we know full well that the growth, the economic strength of the nation comes from the efforts of its people. Its people need incentives to work as hard as[fo 1] they possibly can. All that has produced economic growth.

    It stands for something else. It stands for the wider and wider spread of ownership of property, of houses, of shares, of savings. It stands for being strong in defence—a reliable ally and a trusted friend. People call those things Thatcherism; they are, in fact, fundamental common sense and having faith in the enterprise and abilities of the people. It was my task to try to release those. They were always there; they have always been there in the British people, but they couldn’t flourish under Socialism. They have now been released. That’s all that Thatcherism is."

    see http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106647

    IMO this is not Thatcherism, it is modern Conservatism and her real skill was stripping away the fripperies of day to day politics and media to give these unvarnished truths. It is a lesson this government still needs to relearn.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,930
    tim said:

    @david_herdson

    The U Turn stuff is a bit overdone, one of the biggest post war U turns in economic policy, if not the biggest, was the dumping of monetarism in Autumn 1981 followed by rapid devaluation of the £/$

    http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economist/2007/06/how_monetarism_.html

    As with so many aspects of Thatcher her worshippers and enemies have chosen to ignore it as it doesn't suit their narrative.

    That is a complete and inaccurate rewriting of history. For a more accurate summary look at David Smith's piece of 9th April.http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/001855.html#more There were changes in emphasis in monetarism following recognition that relying on single measures of money supply created distortions but monetarism remained a very important basis of economic policy throughout her premiership.

  • redcliffe62redcliffe62 Posts: 342
    DavidL said:

    Just a little Thatchered out after yesterday but the Drive program played a clip yesterday of Thatcher describing Thatcherism to Robin Day. She said:

    "Let me tell you what it stands for. It stands for sound finance and Government running the affairs of the nation in a sound financial way. It stands for honest money—not inflation. It stands for living within your means. It stands for incentives because we know full well that the growth, the economic strength of the nation comes from the efforts of its people. Its people need incentives to work as hard as[fo 1] they possibly can. All that has produced economic growth.

    It stands for something else. It stands for the wider and wider spread of ownership of property, of houses, of shares, of savings. It stands for being strong in defence—a reliable ally and a trusted friend. People call those things Thatcherism; they are, in fact, fundamental common sense and having faith in the enterprise and abilities of the people. It was my task to try to release those. They were always there; they have always been there in the British people, but they couldn’t flourish under Socialism. They have now been released. That’s all that Thatcherism is."

    see http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106647

    IMO this is not Thatcherism, it is modern Conservatism and her real skill was stripping away the fripperies of day to day politics and media to give these unvarnished truths. It is a lesson this government still needs to relearn.

    Both Thatcherism and Communism appear to suggest that a wealth distribution to many people was its aim. In both cases the elite ended up with the takings and everybody else got a smaller share of the pie.

    Nice words, but words is all they are.

    If the Ritz pays no corporation tax for 17 years as I read, and yet has the money to give Thatcher a suit foc, it tells me that those less well off seem to be the jokers paying more than what I would deem a fair share of tax.
    And do not get me started on her London house registered in the BVI. Who does that belong to now or is that covered by the official secrets act? It merely confirms the ricjh get richer, and that is often at the expense of others.

  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,808
    It's interesting reading the article to see how the style of Government has changed. Although the current lot whine that the civil service etc., is against them, they Govern in a more absolute style than Thatcher was able to. The Opposition, be it civil or political, is far weaker and more divided, and that is perhaps her legacy.
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    The man arrested for allegedly sending ricin through the post was an Elvis impersonator among other things.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,930
    @
    tim said:

    @DavidL.

    The critique of Thatcherism from people like Phillip Blond is that it did precisely the opposite, ie concentrated wealth in fewer hands, decapitalised the poor and increased benefit dependency.

    All of which are demonstrably true and statistically proven.

    But again, the Thatcher myth survives.

    Thatcher "tough on crime" is another favourite.

    Property ownership substantially increased during her premiership as did widespread share ownership. I bought my first house during that time and some privatisation shares that I still have. These statistics are very dependent on the dates.

    But I agree that capitalism red in tooth and claw can result in gross disparities of wealth, unacceptable concentration of wealth and abuses of that wealth by an international elite. It is also true that the poor were excluded from this property owning democracy. These are social issues to which Thatcherism did not have particularly convincing answers.

    That does not mean that it was not a very sound way for the government to organise its own finances. That was the problem at the start of her premiership and it is the problem Cameron also inherited.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,888

    The man arrested for allegedly sending ricin through the post was an Elvis impersonator among other things.

    I bet he's all shook up now he's been arrested. He probably thinks he's untouchable, a Big Boss Man. If convicted, will he be facing some Jailhouse Rock? If he faced the death penalty, will he say The Last Farewell? And I wonder if he opted to willingly Surrender?

    Okay, this is incredibly poor taste, but I couldn't resist.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Perhaps GO had heard Germany was being downgraded ?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    edited April 2013
    "The U Turn stuff is a bit overdone"

    My memory of her time in office is moving from one shambolic situation to another. Arguments between her chancellor Lawson and her American moneterist advisor Alan Walters.

    Leon Britton v Hesseltine wets v dries riots on the streets. Inner cities on fire. Begging on an unprecedented scale. Rent boys all over London's major stations. People living in cardboard boxes in shop doorways throughout the West-End (A Spanish client said to me in '87 on a visit to London that even in Madrid he had never seen so much poverty on the streets).

    Poll tax riots a politicised quasi military police force and wrecked inner cities with zero investment.

    It didn't start getting cleaned up till Major arrived and put Hesseltine in charge and civilization was restored

    It's a pity that SeanT wasn't around at that time or we might get an insightful post from him rather than the gushing drunken rubbish he's vomiting out these past several days
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Facha reminded us that the government shouldn't be the ones wiping our rears.

    Man up lefties - take control of your own destinies instead of continually whining about the man.


  • I bet he's all shook up now he's been arrested. He probably thinks he's untouchable, a Big Boss Man. If convicted, will he be facing some Jailhouse Rock? If he faced the death penalty, will he say The Last Farewell? And I wonder if he opted to willingly Surrender?

    Okay, this is incredibly poor taste, but I couldn't resist.

    Careful with that Ricin, it could give you a fever. They could have always marked the letter, 'Return to sender'

    I just can't help believin' that it would ever have got to anyone senior. There are too many suspicious minds to check.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,661
    Bizarre postings from certain PB right-wingers on yesterday's threads. I can only assume alcohol was involved. My favourites are SeanT's on Maggie the working class hero. As the daughter of someone who owned a business and property, and who was mayor of Grantham, Maggie was actually a member of the town's elite and certainly hugely privileged in comparison to the vast majority of the UK's population at that time. She was not an aristocrat, of course, but she was a long, long way from the poverty line.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,661
    TGOHF said:

    Facha reminded us that the government shouldn't be the ones wiping our rears.

    Man up lefties - take control of your own destinies instead of continually whining about the man.

    Maggie put more people on benefits than any previous PM and sold people their council houses at hugely discounted rates. That represents a substantial amount of arse wiping.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    SO: I thought that Thatcher was born in a house with no running water. Doesn't sound particularly privileged to me.

    And if later her father became better off through hard work doesn't that reinforce her message?

    Personally the fact that someone is working or middle class or whatever is the least interesting thing about them.

    The criticism of council house sales is not the discount but that the money raised was not invested in housing for others. I also agree that leaving people on benefits was - and is - pointless, for them and the rest of us. That is something that this government is trying to address.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,838
    Good morning, everyone.

    Sad to see a thread in such poor taste. A Little Less Conversation of that nature would be welcome.

    In unexpected news Sturgeon et al. now claim that it would be normal to separate, retain sterling and have full fiscal independence.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22188277

    Er, what?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    I had thought we might have, as the saying goes, "moved on".....oh well.

    Latest from South Shields, where Ed is campaigning with Emma Double-Yellow-Line today:

    "Already confirmed as standing are: Emma Lewell-Buck (Lab), Karen Allen (Con), Hugh Annand (Lib Dem), and Richard Elvin (UKIP), while Ahmed Khan and John Robertson are set to stand as independents, and Alan ‘Howling Laud’ Hope is set to represent the Monster Raving Loony Party."

    http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/local-news/commons-writ-formally-sets-by-election-date-1-5588833

    The Lib Dem:
    https://www.facebook.com/hughannand.libdem

    http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/Hertfordshire/Hertfordshire-North-East-candidates-their-election-pledges.htm

    "Having lived in Hertfordshire for most of my life, and in North East Hertfordshire for four years, it is an honour for me to have been selected as the Liberal Democrat candidate for this constituency."
  • What's sad is the inability of some to.let the Thatcher thing go. Supporters will certainly not be swayed by the whining of Roger, Tim, etc and opponents likewise. I suspect History will decide the real legacy as always.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited April 2013
    @Morris_Dancer - Excellent! The SNP are proving to be absolutely hilarious. Ms Sturgeon said it was "every bit as much Scotland's currency" as the rest of the UK's. Err, yes, dear, but you're planning to leave the UK, remember? In that case it would be the currency of a foreign nation.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433

    Good morning, everyone.

    Sad to see a thread in such poor taste. A Little Less Conversation of that nature would be welcome.

    In unexpected news Sturgeon et al. now claim that it would be normal to separate, retain sterling and have full fiscal independence.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22188277

    Er, what?

    I think it's known as making it up as you go along.
  • R83R83 Posts: 1
    Did the Northern Echo have a similar front page when Wilson died? Have any lefties addressed the point re Wilson closing more mines and throwing more miners out of work than Thatcher? Would be interested to hear the counter-arguments.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    scampi said:

    I suspect History will decide the real legacy as always.

    Since all of her erstwhile opponents, and indeed most countries in the Western and emerging world, have completely adopted all of her once-controversial flagship policies, the verdict of history is not in the slightest doubt.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    @R83

    Yes Kevin Maguire was whining about it on the Sky papers review last night
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    More Welsh Labour Fail

    More pressure must be put on state schools to get pupils into the UK's top universities, MP and former Welsh Secretary Paul Murphy has urged.

    Mr Murphy, tasked with getting more Welsh children into Oxford and Cambridge universities, partly blamed a lack of ambition among teachers.

    The number of pupils accepted into Oxbridge is falling.
    The Torfaen MP has also said he is worried the Welsh Baccalaureate might be a barrier.

    Mr Murphy, who was appointed in the Oxbridge ambassador role by the Welsh government last month, said he believed fewer teachers in Wales had been to Oxford and Cambridge compared to 40 years ago so had less knowledge about getting pupils in.

    "I'm sure there's lots of youngsters who would like to go but don't know how to go about it," he said. The Welsh government need to be ambitious for our students to attend the best universities whether it's Oxford or Cambridge or the USA or growing our own universities”

    "It's getting rid of the fear of the perceived elitism when they go there. "Unless we up the pressure on schools and colleges in Wales to do this, then it's not going to do anything about it."

    One head teacher in Wales, who did not want to be identified, told BBC Wales News website there was little support on offer from the Welsh government for schools trying to get pupils into the very best universities.

    Figures obtained by BBC Wales show the number of comprehensive pupils getting into Oxbridge has fallen from 96 in 2008 to 76 in 2012.

    Figures also show the number of students from Wales' independent schools have remained stable for the same period - 28 in 2008 to 29 in 2012.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22093484
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914


    @Cyclefree.

    SO: "I thought that Thatcher was born in a house with no running water"

    This is the house she lived in until she married the millionaire Dennis who took her out of her penury. If she had no running water I can only think her Alderman father was being frugal

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Maison_natale_de_Margaret_Thatcher,_Grantham.JPG
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    Good morning, everyone.

    Sad to see a thread in such poor taste. A Little Less Conversation of that nature would be welcome.

    In unexpected news Sturgeon et al. now claim that it would be normal to separate, retain sterling and have full fiscal independence.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22188277

    Er, what?

    As the Treasury observe:

    ""But as the experience of the euro area has shown, a single currency without full fiscal and political union is a very different thing."
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    tim said:



    Number dependent on working age benefits 1979 - 2 million
    Number dependent on working age benefits 1991 - 6 million

    how does it look if you extend it to 97 and beyond? do we have a hockey stick?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433

    Good morning, everyone.

    Sad to see a thread in such poor taste. A Little Less Conversation of that nature would be welcome.

    In unexpected news Sturgeon et al. now claim that it would be normal to separate, retain sterling and have full fiscal independence.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22188277

    Er, what?

    As the Treasury observe:

    ""But as the experience of the euro area has shown, a single currency without full fiscal and political union is a very different thing."
    With just under 18 months to go I'm fully anticipating the Nats demanding full fiscal and political Union with the rest of the UK and accusing the Unionists of demanding Independence. ;-)
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Ed's Lord Glasman offers Ed advice - "get a new electorate"

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/18/ed-miliband-right-to-ignore-blair-centre-transform


    What Ed Miliband must do next
    The Labour leader is right to ignore Blair's advice: he's not retreating to the old centre but transforming it
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,007
    @tim

    You are advocating rebalancing the economy via an increase in social housing (Maggie failed to do this and so of course did New Labour).

    This would involve a sharp correction in house prices and a concomitant drop in consumer activity 'cos we all love it when the value of our houses rises.

    It is a coherent strategy albeit would involve much pain in the short- to mid-term.

    Do you think EdM will grasp this nettle?

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Benn, Foot, Kinnock, and Jenkins, divisive politicians who split Labour.

    Must look at the Nuffield Election Studies for 79, 83 and 87 to refresh mind about how Mrs Thatcher's victories were viewed at the time and what made them possible.

    Last week's tributes in the HoC showed how all of the parties use Thatcher to send out coded attacks on each other, and also against current leadership.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    tim said:

    1913: When Hitler, Trotsky, Tito, Freud and Stalin all lived in the same place

    Grantham?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21859771

    Ha! I was at uni with Charles Emmerson, the guy that wrote that piece for Chatham House
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,541
    tim said:
    Good spot. Worth reading the full poll for everyone as a reality check - there are findings in there which will surprise and dismay almost all of us in different ways. Apart from the right to buy question:

    Would stronger unions be good? Probably not. (45-34)
    Should government concentrate on growth and jobs rather than inflation and reducing borrowing? Probably. (49-41)
    Should we keep nukes? Absolutely. (59-26)
    Are we more like America or Europe? Probably America. (44-35)
    Are social problems mainly for government or individuals to tackle? Definitely government. (59-29)
    Should there be lots of regulation constraining business? Hmm, not sure. (40-45)
    Is profitability a sign of efficiency or exploitation? Efficiency. (52-32)
    Should utilities be state-owned or is competition better? Definitely state-owned. (61-26 - even Tories agree)





  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    @ Nick Palmer

    the utilities one is interesting: if we consider telephony a utility would gadget rationing quickly follow ? Likewise should bread and butter banking ( Giro, TSB style ) be added back to the mix ?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    The Bishop of London's address at Thatcher's funeral:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/17/bishop-address-thatcher-funeral-text

    "She described her own religious upbringing in a lecture she gave in the nearby church of St Lawrence Jewry. She said: "We often went to church twice on a Sunday, as well as on other occasions during the week. We were taught there always to make up our own minds and never take the easy way of following the crowd."
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    tim said:

    @TOPPING

    Put it this way, I think Ed is savvy enough to recognise that if he doesn't whichever Tory replaces Cameron is likely to, along with a living wage.

    Smart Tories are starting to realise that Cameron and Osborne are the last gasp of the low wage-high rent- high benefit spending-house price inflation model of the last few decades.

    That is the cosy 1979-2015 consensus which must be broken.

    That all sounds great until you realise it's Ed and Labour, he'll talk about hard decisions, he won't actually take them.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Maggie's dad? The similarities are rather surprising (though he didn't have any kids)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alf_Roberts
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    Haha- I have managed to reclaim my original posting name. Tyson.
    And- big apologies are due to Roger. Years ago I slagged off his Apple laptop. What nonsense- five laptops later- I should have bought one then and saved myself years of hardship and money.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    @NickPalmer

    Ugh! to some of the question wording:

    "Is profitability a sign of efficiency or exploitation?"

    Is it really that binary?
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Nicely written, Corporeal.

    Thanks you.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    tyson said:

    Haha- I have managed to reclaim my original posting name. Tyson.
    And- big apologies are due to Roger. Years ago I slagged off his Apple laptop. What nonsense- five laptops later- I should have bought one then and saved myself years of hardship and money.

    If you'd bought one then you wouldn't be able to update it with the latest Mac OS now, so would have needed to replace it if you wanted to link it to iPad or iPhone.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    @Alanbrooke

    "Hard decisisons" are just decisions you approve of right?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,838
    Welcome back, Mr. Tyson.

    As you're in Italy you could've renamed yourself Tysonicus Maximus Italicus :p
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,541
    BenM said:

    @NickPalmer

    Ugh! to some of the question wording:

    "Is profitability a sign of efficiency or exploitation?"

    Is it really that binary?

    No, I paraphrased, sorry. See the link from tim's post at the start of the thread for the full details.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    Facha reminded us that the government shouldn't be the ones wiping our rears.

    Man up lefties - take control of your own destinies instead of continually whining about the man.

    Maggie put more people on benefits than any previous PM and sold people their council houses at hugely discounted rates. That represents a substantial amount of arse wiping.

    She didn't put people on benefits - she rightly decided that the taxpayer shouldn't continue to prop up a uneconomic business run for the benefit of a powerful vested interest group.

    There were 2 types of people who got laid off in the 80s - one who got on their bikes and made a new career for themselves - and the other who continue to feel sorry for themselves now.

    The government is not there to do everything SO - the more it gets out of the way the better - doing less better should be the motto.

    I guess you dream of a government that chooses your newspapers, chooses what shops you have in your highstreet, chooses which apprenticeship scheme your children can have and chooses how a much higher % of your money is spent - if so vote Miliband.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,541

    @ Nick Palmer

    the utilities one is interesting: if we consider telephony a utility would gadget rationing quickly follow ? Likewise should bread and butter banking ( Giro, TSB style ) be added back to the mix ?

    I've always thought it was a shame that Girobank was shunted into a private siding. It's the completely dominant payment form across most of the Continent and made life much easier than messing about with cheques and phone banking. In 16 years in Switzerland I hardly ever wrote or saw a cheque. With the advance of online banking it matters less, though.

  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    I could get behind a proper housebuilding programme: it's quite clear to me the deficit in housing has been allowed to grow much bigger than it looks on paper. House prices wouldn't plummet, because even so the new stock would be small compared with the total number of houses available - and new houses would encourage purchasing.

    I have to say I am genuinely confused as to why more houses aren't built. Surely with our prices it must be profitable to build a house? Is it all in the planning, or is there something more complicated?

    Anyway, obviously the problem is finding somewhere to put them. That is where the "hard decisions" lie and a lot of political capital and energy expended. We need at least a new large town or take a town and make it a city or take a city like Liverpool and transform it.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    tim said:


    Number dependent on working age benefits 1979 - 2 million
    Number dependent on working age benefits 1991 - 6 million

    Keep peddling the myths.

    One of the myths appears to be '6 million in 1991' - this chart shows 4, not reaching 6 until 1994:

    http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cmpo/publications/bulletin/winter10/gregg.pdf

    "As the government says, there has been a 40% real increase over the last decade, but the rise was much greater in the 1950s, 60s and 70s.

    Indeed, apart from the current recession, the growth of welfare spending has slowed rapidly since the mid-1980s, and is less out of control now than at any time since the Second World War."
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    @TGOHF

    This from a poster trying to spin Osbornes plan for state subsidised mortgages.

    This from a poster who pretended to be a farmer ?
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Good Morning. Yet another thread on Thatcher. Enough I say, even though I admired her immensely. Enough! Let the lady rest.

    More to the point, is the USA under some sort of general attack?
    First the Boston explosions.
    Secondly, The Ricin letters.
    And now this morning (night in Texas) this giant factory explosion in Waco.
    A campaign or just coincidence?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    tim said:

    @Carlotta.
    Quite happy to be corrected 1994 it is, the post Lawson-boom recession caused that peak.

    Although you're quote about the welfare bill being the most under control since the war under Labour is interesting.

    "Since the mid-80s'.

    Who was PM in the mid-80s?

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,375

    Good morning, everyone.

    Sad to see a thread in such poor taste. A Little Less Conversation of that nature would be welcome.

    In unexpected news Sturgeon et al. now claim that it would be normal to separate, retain sterling and have full fiscal independence.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22188277

    Er, what?

    Morris, And why ever not , it is our currency as well, along with a share of all UK assets. We will not accept rUK debts whilst they keep all the assets etc. Just unionist sour grapes wanting to run away with the ball because they are crap at football.
  • samsam Posts: 727
    Is there a way that the state could make short term high interest loan firms pay more tax to discourage their existence? I'm talking about the pay day loan companies that advertise / prey on the daytime tv market.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,045
    edited April 2013
    Thanks for your piece Corporeal.

    My view, and I think you imply this, is that Thatcher's position in the national (sic) psyche revolves mainly around perceptions of authenticity. Despite all the image burnishing, u-turns and compromises, there's a group of people that will forever think of her as the embodiment of pure conviction, the real deal. Personally I always found her pretty phony: the manufactured home counties accent, the artificially lowered vocal tones, the 'jokes' written by other people, the queasy expressions of empathy (where there is despair, may we bring hope etc, etc), the farther she was from Ur Thacherism the hollower they rang. There's an hilarious interview Thatcher did in Scotland where she speaks of 'we in Scotland', 'we Scots' and 'Sassenachs'; at least half the hilarity lies in her total lack of self-awareness of how she came across.

    I guess in the end we have to accept that there is no objective measure of authenticity. The views of those applauding as they lined London's streets yesterday are as sincere as those who put together the Scab floral tribute. They're competing myths, neither of which will ever overwhelm the other.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    @Tim: What's interesting is how contingent the sale of council housing policy was. According to Dominic Sandbrook's book ("Seasons in the Sun") Callaghan's government was considering it and had done a few sales but then decided against it; the Tories adopted it and the rest, as they say, is history.

    Housing - having enough of it, of good quality, in the right places - is going to be a big issue. No-one seems to have a sensible thought-out policy about it.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Grandiose said:

    I could get behind a proper housebuilding programme: it's quite clear to me the deficit in housing has been allowed to grow much bigger than it looks on paper. House prices wouldn't plummet, because even so the new stock would be small compared with the total number of houses available - and new houses would encourage purchasing.

    I have to say I am genuinely confused as to why more houses aren't built. Surely with our prices it must be profitable to build a house? Is it all in the planning, or is there something more complicated?

    Anyway, obviously the problem is finding somewhere to put them. That is where the "hard decisions" lie and a lot of political capital and energy expended. We need at least a new large town or take a town and make it a city or take a city like Liverpool and transform it.

    It's not just a case of planning - you need to build where the jobs are. Can you take someone like Liverpool & transform it: absolutely. The government should be doing this - but it's a different problem to the housing one.

    As always, the problem comes down to one of negative externalities. Society would benefit from lower house prices, but building is typically concentratyed in specific areas - the monetary costs (woner occupiers) and other costs (views, infrastructure, etc) or all residents. I'd tend to be much more aggressive with compulsary purchasdes & much more generous with compensation payments: there is real value to speed. If you leave this kind of strategic decision to the locals it won't get done (but local decision making is best for man
    y things).


    Where you have vested interests you can either fight & break them or you can stuff their mouths with gold. On planning I'd go for the latter.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    Roger said:

    "The U Turn stuff is a bit overdone"

    My memory of her time in office is moving from one shambolic situation to another. Arguments between her chancellor Lawson and her American moneterist advisor Alan Walters.

    Leon Britton v Hesseltine wets v dries riots on the streets. Inner cities on fire. Begging on an unprecedented scale. Rent boys all over London's major stations. People living in cardboard boxes in shop doorways throughout the West-End (A Spanish client said to me in '87 on a visit to London that even in Madrid he had never seen so much poverty on the streets).

    Poll tax riots a politicised quasi military police force and wrecked inner cities with zero investment.

    It didn't start getting cleaned up till Major arrived and put Hesseltine in charge and civilization was restored

    It's a pity that SeanT wasn't around at that time or we might get an insightful post from him rather than the gushing drunken rubbish he's vomiting out these past several days

    I think it's high time we had a post like that, now she has been put to rest. There's a reason why those who grew up in the 1980s lean left: we remember the reality, not the myth, of a Thatcherite government. Heseltine was a kind of hero.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    tim said:

    @Carlotta

    The quote in your post is

    less out of control now (2010) than at any time since the Second World War."

    "the growth of welfare spending has slowed rapidly since the mid-1980s"

    Started under Thatcher, continued by her successors....
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    Roger: "Heseltine was a kind of hero."

    Don't be ridiculous. He was quite mad. I worked in the Department of the Environment (after he had left). The civil servants who worked in his private office thought him quite bonkers and quite unfit to be let loose in No. 10. By contrast Nicholas Ridley was utterly charming and a very good boss, particularly to me as a very junior lawyer (whatever what might think of his policies).

    I grew up and had my first jobs in the 80's and very vividly remember the 70's - I have a much more nuanced position than you seem to about that time.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Interesting article from James Forsyth on the Blair Bitch Project - at its root is a difference in analysis on what ailed New Labour between Blair (it was Brown's fault) and Miliband (it was going wrong before Brown):

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/politics/8891541/power-struggles-in-a-cynical-age/
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited April 2013
    It has been great being reminded over the last few days of how massive Maggie's achievement was, and what a bad state Britain was in before she rescued the country. I knew of course that we were subsidising industries like coal and steel (in 1981, the steel industry got a £1.1bn taxpayer subsidy against a turnover of £3bn!), but I hadn't realised the full horror of it - even British Telecom, which was hardly in a declining industry sector, required taxpayer subsidies in the years before privatisation (£300m in 1980). Yet, before Maggie, all this insanity was seen as normal, even inevitable, by the entire political class.

    All gone, swept away by her and her alone, not just here but throughout most of the world. It is testament to her achievement that even the EU has enshrined in its law her views on subsidising duff industries.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    @ BenM

    no hard decisions are the ones Labour always run away from because they only like to dish out sweeties. So you want to build all these houses; I agree. What is your policy on where they should be built ? What is your policy on how they should be built ? Should UK nationals have priority over others on allocation ? How many houses should be built and how will they be funded ?
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Cyclefree said:

    Roger: "Heseltine was a kind of hero."

    Don't be ridiculous. He was quite mad. I worked in the Department of the Environment (after he had left). The civil servants who worked in his private office thought him quite bonkers and quite unfit to be let loose in No. 10. By contrast Nicholas Ridley was utterly charming and a very good boss, particularly to me as a very junior lawyer (whatever what might think of his policies).

    I grew up and had my first jobs in the 80's and very vividly remember the 70's - I have a much more nuanced position than you seem to about that time.

    Heseltine was always power hungry and departmental empire builder in the tory cabinets.
    He was a back-stabber at the first opportunity: Heseltine as PM would have dragged Britain back to the 1970's. He is still trying to turn back the clock in his many appearances on QT.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    MikeK said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Roger: "Heseltine was a kind of hero."

    Don't be ridiculous. He was quite mad. I worked in the Department of the Environment (after he had left). The civil servants who worked in his private office thought him quite bonkers and quite unfit to be let loose in No. 10. By contrast Nicholas Ridley was utterly charming and a very good boss, particularly to me as a very junior lawyer (whatever what might think of his policies).

    I grew up and had my first jobs in the 80's and very vividly remember the 70's - I have a much more nuanced position than you seem to about that time.

    Heseltine was always power hungry and departmental empire builder in the tory cabinets.
    He was a back-stabber at the first opportunity: Heseltine as PM would have dragged Britain back to the 1970's. He is still trying to turn back the clock in his many appearances on QT.
    I love the story told by a scientist summoned before Heseltine as a Minister and when being told that Heseltine had "made his first million by age 25" demanded to know what they had done by age 25. "Detonated 4 hydrogen bombs"......

  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806
    Among the many anecdotes about Maggie is the one that tells of a major EU meeting in Brussels with the inevitable press conference at the close. Maggie and Jacques Delors were alone on the rostrum. Maggie's press secretary had arranged it so that she was on a raised platform but Delors was lower "and almost in the shadows". She took all the questions and gave all the answers. At the end a journalist asked "what did M.Delors think of the meeting?" Maggie responded by saying "M.Delors is the strong and silent type".
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    @Charles,

    High house prices have little to do with lack of housing supply but more with over supply of credit by banks to borrowers. If we hadn't had Interest Only mortgages, 100% mortgages and fully fraudulent mortgages during the last decade then people would never have been able to bid up house prices by so much. We also shouldn't forget Brown's role in removing house price inflation from the BoE's inflation targeting remit...
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    @tim - So, if she was wrong, why does every single mainstream politician in the UK and in the rest of Europe agree with her now? Even the former Glasgow Labour councillor whose department is now continuing Labour's policy of privatising the Royal Mail.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    tim said:

    Thatchers legacy of privatisation (one of her least popular by the way,probably after Majors bizarre railway fixation) was half a job..

    Indeed, luckily the good work was continued by Blair and Brown: Actis, British Nuclear Fuels, National Air Traffic Services, Qinetiq, and UKAEA. They were working on the Tote and the Royal Mail.

    So she won that argument, didn't she? Even her opponents continued to implement her policy.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    tim said:

    Oh no, the Mr Whippy Thatcher myth isn't true either!
    Pippa Crerar ‏@PippaCrerar
    No!!! I always thought Lady T invented Mr Whippy. It almost made up for the milk. Turns out she didn't. http://ind.pn/113BcFY
    She was soft on crime,but not soft on ice cream.

    "An oft-told anecdote in British left circles associates Thatcher with the invention of soft ice cream, which added air, lowered quality and raised profits.” In other words, it wasn’t Thatcher’s supporters who spread the soft-serve myth; it was the left-wingers, who saw in it a suitable metaphor for her policies."

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/04/the-margaret-thatcher-ice-cream-myth.html
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    JonathanD said:

    @Charles,

    High house prices have little to do with lack of housing supply but more with over supply of credit by banks to borrowers. If we hadn't had Interest Only mortgages, 100% mortgages and fully fraudulent mortgages during the last decade then people would never have been able to bid up house prices by so much. We also shouldn't forget Brown's role in removing house price inflation from the BoE's inflation targeting remit...

    Those all played a part - and if you want to go back far enough then arguably the Greenspan put / artifical low rates policy drive the need to be more aggreessive on mortgages to seeks yield (the inteterest margin was no longer enough for banks).

    Fundamentally the price of an asset reflects (a) the availability of the asset and (b) the cost of purchasing it (ie financing cost) you need to address both.

    Also you need to be careful with natiuonal figures on hosuing - there are plenty of spare houses where people don't need them and not enough where people do. The contributes to, for instance, longer communting times to London (I know people, eg, who commute from Derbyshire) but this has a social cost not always reflected in the economic analysis
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    "It's not just a case of planning - you need to build where the jobs are. Can you take someone like Liverpool & transform it: absolutely. The government should be doing this - but it's a different problem to the housing one."

    You can spend billions of pounds of taxpayers money rebuilding some where like Liverpool, but where do the jobs come from to keep the place going? Liverpool grew into a great city because of the trans-atlantic trade. That trade, in as much as it still exists, now uses other ports which can handle the massive container ships. So where are the industries that would give such "redundant" cities a new lease of life?

    As for building where the jobs are, it is already happening. The South-East is experiencing massive housebuilding, though without the infrastructure development that needs to go with it. The property developers are making fortunes from building houses but the spending on new transport links, hospitals, etc. isn't happening.

    Perhaps a neater and cheaper solution would be to encourage, pensioners from the SE to go North making space for economically active people to come South. The pensioners would as a by product create jobs in the health and care sectors in the areas of their new abodes and enjoy a better quality of life.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    @RichardNabavi

    I'm not sure every country removed industrial subsidies and chose to pay the same amount or more out in benefits, did they?
    Thatchers legacy of privatisation (one of her least popular by the way,probably after Majors bizarre railway fixation*) was half a job.
    No point if you just transfer the spending to the benefit budget.

    She was like Germany taking over East Germany but paying the East German former state employees benefits for twenty years

    Even hapless George can see that


    George Osborne has buried a key legacy of Margaret Thatcher when he condemned the way her government placed thousands of unemployed people on disability benefits as "quick-fix politics of the worst kind".


    *What was that "brown and cream carriages" nostalgia about, old maids cycling to church then getting a brown and cream train home bollocks

    The German way isn't perfect either.

    Just got back last week from a tour of a beautiful vaccine manufacturing plant in former GDR. Everything that a manufacturing guy could have dreamed of was there - all bells, all whistles, lots of toys. Built at a cost of Eur 300m, 80pby theGerman/EU taxpayer.

    Only problem is the plant is virtually empty. They are desparate for product to fill the place.
    O
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,685
    If Thatcher had been a man, say resembling Michael Howard, and had exactly the same political career, she would be seen as much the same as Blair is now.

    In the end, her primary achievement and the thing that makes her noteworthy is that she was our first female PM.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Wait everyone has access to Sky news ?

    Perhaps they should introduce a fixed fee tax to enable the fine people at Sky news to give their product away free ?



  • Perhaps a neater and cheaper solution would be to encourage, pensioners from the SE to go North making space for economically active people to come South. The pensioners would as a by product create jobs in the health and care sectors in the areas of their new abodes and enjoy a better quality of life.

    Sounds good in theory, Mr L., but I know a few people round our part of the world who have moved to the Se to take up new jobs, and their parents have followed, just to be neared them.

    I'm in favour of your solution if it would work, building up the SE as it is going now just can't work from an infrastructure basis. It isn't just roads and hospitals. What about the water?

  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    @Jonathan - Is that denial of reality the best consolation you can find for yourself?

    Mrs Thatcher transformed Britain, and indeed much of the world, thank goodness.

    Get over it.
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,251
    MikeK said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Roger: "Heseltine was a kind of hero."

    Don't be ridiculous. He was quite mad. I worked in the Department of the Environment (after he had left). The civil servants who worked in his private office thought him quite bonkers and quite unfit to be let loose in No. 10. By contrast Nicholas Ridley was utterly charming and a very good boss, particularly to me as a very junior lawyer (whatever what might think of his policies).

    I grew up and had my first jobs in the 80's and very vividly remember the 70's - I have a much more nuanced position than you seem to about that time.

    Heseltine was always power hungry and departmental empire builder in the tory cabinets.
    He was a back-stabber at the first opportunity: Heseltine as PM would have dragged Britain back to the 1970's. He is still trying to turn back the clock in his many appearances on QT.

    He was also very much an opportunist rather than a man of principle. Back in 1979/80 I was a student member of the Tory Reform Group which back then was very much then a Heathite think tank and pressure group of the Tory left. The late Peter Walker was a principled and much admired patron of the group. Ironically though he was a far more loyal and effective "wet" minister than the showboating Heseltine ever was. Heseltine joined the TRG around 1980 as a johnny come lately and was much derided among those "in the know" for only doing so because of wishing to establish a power base within the party.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,685

    @Jonathan - Is that denial of reality the best consolation you can find for yourself?

    Mrs Thatcher transformed Britain, and indeed much of the world, thank goodness.

    Get over it.

    Sorry, I simply do not agree with you. That's ok.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    I see Dan Hodges in his latest blog ends by proclaiming that England was a better place the day St Maggie left Downing street than the day she entered.

    That should nail down the final lid on his coffin with the left.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Moving on...

    zerohedge ‏@zerohedge
    Spain’s Sovereign Debt Is Close to Unsustainable: BBG economist David Powell
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    @Jonathan - You don't think the Thatcher governments transformed Britain?

    I must say, I don't think I have ever heard anyone, from anywhere on the political spectrum, express that view before.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Without Thatcher there would not have been Sky news, Sky sports, Virgin Media, Easyjet, Vodaphone, etc etc etc ad infinitum.

    The Uk's nationalised industries were/are a total joke.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,541
    TGOHF said:

    Without Thatcher there would not have been Sky news, Sky sports, Virgin Media, Easyjet, Vodaphone, etc etc etc ad infinitum.

    The Uk's nationalised industries were/are a total joke.


    You're making me all UKIP - bring back the good old days, eh? Can we scrap Ryanair and First Capital Connect and ambulance-chasing accident compensation spammers and rival directory enquiry services while we're at it?

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    @Charles.
    Probably not the right week to be punting single measles jabs.

    Maybe they could work on a vaccine to combat Daily Mail health scares

    Firstly that has nothing to do with my point.

    Secondly, I know a heck of a lot more about vaccines than you do.

    Compliance is the most important thing. MMR has advantages on the compliance and cost front for the government. However, for the individual combination vaccines do have disavantages.

    Individually the pereference is 3xsingle > MMR > none
    For the government the better option is MMR > sinlge > no vacccination.

    To try and save money to governments pushed MMR. I understand why they did it, but it doesn't mean that for an educated individual the risk profile might not be different.

    Fundamentally, though, the most important thing is to get vaccinated. The debate is more interesting when it is a choice between MMR and two of the recommended vaccines.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited April 2013

    Respect for being "on message" with rEd's new "we will manage the high street and only have nice happy corporations allowed - like the Guardian"

    Without Ryanair, hundreds nae thousands of your former constituents would not have been able to travel - you claim to know better than they do what they want ?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,685

    @Jonathan - You don't think the Thatcher governments transformed Britain?

    I must say, I don't think I have ever heard anyone, from anywhere on the political spectrum, express that view before.

    Macmillan transformed Britain.
    Wilson transformed Britain
    Heath transformed Britain
    Thatcher transformed Britain
    Blair transformed Britain.

    Arguably the biggest change was brought about by Heath. Thatcher isn't all that remarkable IMO. The idea that she saved Britain is bogus.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    "you need to build where the jobs are. Can you take somewhere like Liverpool & transform it: absolutely. The government should be doing this - but it's a different problem to the housing one."

    If you have a globalist banking system concentrated in London such that all the spare capital in the country flows to that centre for allocation on a global basis then it will go to wherever the rate or return is highest globally. What are the odds that the highest rate of return available in the world at any one moment is going to be in Hull?

    Pretty much zero.

    So what you get is a very high return in the financial sector in London while the rest of the country - with a few exceptions like the oil regions - get completely starved of capital. The outcome of long-term capital starvation is the slow gradual destruction of the national economy outside the City of London. Seems to me this should be pretty obvious?

    For this setup to be a good idea for the country as a whole - rather than just the City and their pet politicians and journalists - the tax from the very high rate of return in the financial sector needs to be able to compensate for the capital starvation everywhere else - and if you believe the government is generally useless at this sort of thing then that's not likely to happen.

    The alternative setup i.e. the old one, had regional capital flows going into what was effectively a local & regional banking system where investment decisions were based on getting the best return from the possible investment choices available locally & regionally - which included Hull. So you get a lower average rate of return on the capital available in the country but the benefit is spread round the whole country.

    So seems to me a healthy country needs an outward facing international banking sector and a sealed-off inward facing local & regional banking sector.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,541
    O/T since we seem to be trudging along well-worn paths this morning: entertaining, entirely non-political anecdote from our talented local blogger:

    http://beestonia.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/smokin-beestonia/
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    Charles said:

    tim said:

    @Charles.
    Probably not the right week to be punting single measles jabs.

    Maybe they could work on a vaccine to combat Daily Mail health scares

    Firstly that has nothing to do with my point.

    Secondly, I know a heck of a lot more about vaccines than you do.

    Compliance is the most important thing. MMR has advantages on the compliance and cost front for the government. However, for the individual combination vaccines do have disavantages.

    Individually the pereference is 3xsingle > MMR > none
    For the government the better option is MMR > sinlge > no vacccination.

    To try and save money to governments pushed MMR. I understand why they did it, but it doesn't mean that for an educated individual the risk profile might not be different.

    Fundamentally, though, the most important thing is to get vaccinated. The debate is more interesting when it is a choice between MMR and two of the recommended vaccines.
    The triple vaccine has had a lot of use, evidence, research etc done. The single vaccines haven't, indeed there's a large lack of research around their use.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    edited April 2013
    "I'm in favour of your solution if it would work, building up the SE as it is going now just can't work from an infrastructure basis. It isn't just roads and hospitals. What about the water?"

    Good point about the water supply. I don't know if my idea would work, I suspect the numbers would come out about right but there are social issues that would need to be considered. You mentioned people moving South to be near their working off-spring, may be there would be the same drag that would prevent the elderly moving North. I dunno, but it seems certain to me that the idea that "redundant" areas can be revitalised by government action has been tested to destruction - it has been going on since the end of WW2 (see the Atlee cabinet papers). As the old motto goes if what you are doing isn't working doing something else.
This discussion has been closed.