Ā You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Bad for all of us - a(nother) utility commodotized. See people now leveraging massively to afford pony housing that when rates go back up will see them in penury/out on their arse. But still the elite and the services industry leviathans are benefitting nicely.
I can sort of understand those among you of a vaguely right-leaning disposition who weren't around at the time of Thatcher wondering why all the hatred. However, if you were around and 'economically active' and in the manufacturing industry (especially if you were a union member).....
I have heard of a theory that Blair is the bastard son of Thatcher.
Going back to the OP and original question....
but who is the least popular?
A very difficult queestion as I am not sure either are any where near popular......
A better question may be ...
Who is most UNpopular .....
And in this case I would suggest that in the UK Maggie probably shades it but in the wider world it is most likely Bliar
Either way would suggest that neither would win any imaginable popularity contest any where
[url= http://www.cityam.com/1416968352/treasury-reaps-reward-tax-cuts ]Loadsamoney[/url]
Ā£80bn. By cutting taxes.
Just saying, like...
I hated the unions a lot more than Thatcher. Power cuts were a part of my childhood. Does anyone think the UK coal mining industry would have flourished today had the unions won the fight?
Woppit - I'd use the point the arse fell out of the world economy as my benchmark too, totally representative.
These seem to show Thatcher is more respected:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom
http://listverse.com/2007/10/25/the-top-10-british-prime-ministers/
I hated the unions a lot more than Thatcher.
Yeah I hate equal pay for men and women, holiday pay, maternity pay, better pay generally, protection from arbitrary sacking and better safety standards too. Bastards.
No bad things you can think of then?
There are negative things about the unions of course - but to dismiss them out of hand as a malign influence is idiocy of the highest order and just shows how easily people swallow right-wing propaganda.
I assume all those who hate the unions will be renouncing all the stuff I mentioned above in their workplace?
He probably meant on balance the way the unions were in the 70s/early 80s caused more harm than good.
I hate Thatcher far more.
Blair got some things wrong but his Government made a lot of progress when it comes to NHS and education, policing, social housing, minimum wage where as the Tories had pretty much abandoned a lot of these things.
New Labour's biggest failure was not breaking the neo-liberal agenda set by Thatcher/Reagan and instead trying to use it as a force for good. The deregulation of the finance sector that occurred under the Tories in the 80s and 90s should have been reversed. Unfortunately very few people were talking about that back then as everyone thought we were doing rather well.
EDIT - How many of you can honestly say that in the mid 2000s you were saying we must stop all the reckless financial shenanigans?
Well going back to the OP, it would appear that there a few Thatcher 'non' haters here, but not much support for Blair, which would seem to answer the question satisfactorily.
Personally I don't think and have never thought Blair was fit to wipe Maggie's arse, but each to their own eh. For me, he was a typical snake oil salesman, whilst Mrs Thatch said what she thought....always! I didn't always agree but I admired that.
Is this a thread about the good old days?
[i]I have heard of a theory that Blair is the bastard son of Thatcher.[/i]
I think in fact is was the old witch herself that said her greatest triumph was New Labour and Blair.
By which of course she meant that the once laughed at policies of the Chicago school had become so mainstream that even Labour had had to remake themselves to fit the new orthodoxy.
So diverting this off track again .. š
But geography isn't really the point. Getting back onto the original subject, these banks (City based or not) were all taking ridiculous risks with other peoples money, then rewarding themselves to truly obscene levels, exploiting a deregulated, wild-west financial market entirely made possible, and positively encouraged by her Ladyship (may she rot in hell!)
The UK banks which blew up where all second or third tier in terms of management, market position and pay. I think that is relevant as is their geography IMO
But you're refering to just UK banks in the context of a global recession. Didn't a lot of the US/International banks that went tits up have a big City presence? eg. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Lehmans etc.And I don't think Brown can be accused of casing the recession. It just happend on his watch. I thought the Yanks started it with all that sub-prime malarkey. (though my memory might be faulty)
@somewhat - yes definitely originated in the US but we had our own slightly less toxic version of sub-prime which is hat did for HBOS, Northern Rock. RBS had a big US subsiduary and was over-leveraged after buying ABN Amro (Dutch bank but which is where it got the US subsiduary from). The US banks where big in London as it's the financial centre for Europe, they could have been anywhere. I don't blame Brown for the recession although 10 years of Labour did nothing to reign in the banks. I do blame Brown for crippling Lloyds for encouraging them to bail out HBOS, Lloyds was a pretty decent bank and didn;t deserve that poisoned chalice.
Even without Thatcher the mining industry would have wound down, burning coal is just too environmentally unfriendly to continue. Also as per @moshimonster I remember power cuts as a child, IMO the miners signed their own "death warrant" with those actions as there was very little sympathy for them after that.
If you think of the big union battles miners, dockers, printers pretty much all of those businesses no longer exist or are relevant - with or without Thatcher - the world changes and we use containers now and the internet for news, alternative energy etc.
Our current situation is not really the result of Blair/Brown or Thatcher's policies really, it's more systemic than that.
The economy grew fast after WW2 because our GDP at the end of that was so low (we were close to broke) - any growth would look high as a %. We also had the demographic bonanza of the baby boomer generation - more people = more work = more earnings = more spending = more GDP.
That came to an end in the 70s.
Thatcher realised this and went for liberalising the markets but that didn't really solve the problem so Blair/Brown kept our living standards increasing by borrowing massively and encouraging consumers into debt. Loose lending standards for mortgages was also part of this game.
Then the inevitable came in 2008.But the main point here is that it was neither Thatcher or Blair/Brown that caused the crash. This game of liberalisation and debt was being played by all of the Western economies - Europe, USA, Canada, Australia etc.
I know it's comforting to scapegoat leaders or a particular colour of politician but this is so much bigger than party ideology or policy. We simply don't have the ability to keep growing the economy in the way we got used to from 1946 - mid-70's.
The demographic dividend of the baby boomer generation that gave us that growth is now going sharply into reverse as they become dependent on the economy rather than fuelling it. There's not a government policy which can deal with the fundamentals of demography... the harsh choices are either robots/technology to do the jobs or massive immigration, and we all know how well the great British public are responding to that idea...
Looking back, it would've been better for the Tories in 1979 to admit the fundamentals were too weak and managed us into low economic growth. Problem with that of course is that the electorate wouldn't have supported it - we like being rich...
In a nutshell - there it is.
We've been living beyond our means for some time now and the measures that our politicians can take to keep the falsehood going are getting fewer and fewer.
Mrs Thatch said what she thought
If she had she would not have won any elections. So instead she talked about reducing unemployment, government spending, taxes, crime, etc, and all the stuff about putting harmony where there is discord, and hope where there is despair, and so on, none of which she had any intention of achieving.
She kept schtum about making wealthy people wealthier and trebling unemployment to weaken trade unions and keep wages low.
ernie_lynch - Member
Mrs Thatch said what she thought
If she had she would not have won any elections. So instead she talked about reducing unemployment, government spending, taxes, crime, etc, and all the stuff about putting harmony where there is discord, and hope where there is despair, and so on, none of which she had any intention of achieving.
Basicly all the crap they all spoiut every 4 years.
She kept schtum about making wealthy people wealthier and trebling unemployment to weaken trade unions and keep wages low.
ansd sellinganything of value the governmnet had control of to asset strippers to disect and sack staff, to m\ke profits for shareholders, very few of whom where the public.
British Rail and the national bus company along with the water companies spring to mind, where companies where sold for peanuts, asset stripped of property and buildings, and little or no investment put in, before being resold to foreign companies.
For the general publicv, both bliar and thatcher where seen as evil pathetic people and both are hated in equal measure.
I hated the unions a lot more than Thatcher. Power cuts were a part of my childhood. Does anyone think the UK coal mining industry would have flourished today had the unions won the fight?
Who Knows, The UK still has nine operational coal fired, plus got a couple of Coal and Biomass and one Coal, Oil and Gas, power stations, this includes Selby which is the UK's largest power station; ~4x the capacity of Sizewell-B, our [i]newest[/i] (20 years old) Nuclear station, so yeah there would still be a market for coal in the UK...
As it is our energy needs are met mainly by various forms of gas fired station now (Open and closed cycle turbines) with some oil and gas fired boiler efforts a bit of ageing nuclear plant, plus some other minor stuff...
We will be well in Russia's pocket for the next Decade+ for Gas all because all of them since the 70's (especially Thatcher and later Blair) lacked the foresight to address future energy security for the UK, and we're dragging our arses getting new nuclear stations approved and built (which the French will have a stake in via EDF)...
Ultimately She crushed the Unions, and in the process gifted our Energy sector to foreign businesses...
I think it is safe to say the union movement did more to improve the standard of living, education, safety, reduced working hours than any govt. It should also be remembered that successful companies rarely have an issue with unions. Maybe if we had a stronger union presence then zero hours contracts wouldn't exist? As a few posts have pointed out people who were not around during Thatcher take a lot of their current employment benefits and rights for granted - to be blunt most rights you have as an employee have been delivered by union action or pressure and those people often went without pay on strike to get those benefits and yes the likes of Scargill got out of control but for everyone of him there was thousands of union members and officials who didn't. The miners strike was one of the lowest moments this country has ever witnessed - I doubt there will ever be another group of ordinary people who will stick together over a principle they showed more honour and dignity than any politician I have seen and if anyone fails to recognise that regardless of your political leanings then you are just the same as Blair. Rant over
I see you only made a small dig at that Blair bitch, Project...
The Chief Lizard (sorry) must be getting anxious about his legacy, he's set the spin machine in motion..
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/26/stop-knee-jerk-blair-backlash-anti-poverty-award-save-the-children ]Guardian article defending Blairs record, written by spin meister. [/url]
Yeah I hate equal pay for men and women, holiday pay, maternity pay, better pay generally, protection from arbitrary sacking and better safety standards too. Bastards.
Did you not notice I said hated (as in past tense)? Anyway you certainly don't need a union to achieve any of those things in the modern workplace. Some of the big Unions back in the day were self-destructive and just as power crazy as any political party. I'm not a big fan of the likes of Unite today if I'm honest, but they are nothing compared to the old days. Any working group that thinks going on strike is a productive concept should be shot.
If it hadn't been for the unions, then I'm sure shooting workers for getting uppity would actually be legal
Anyway you certainly don't need a union to achieve any of those things in the modern workplace.
The current government would get rid of most of that stuff in a second if they thought they could get away with it. Unions are one of the main reasons why they can't.
People who fail to see this are, frankly, morons.
Any working group that thinks going on strike is a productive concept should be shot.
Ah yes I see I was correct in my previous assessment.
Okay so I'll concede that perhaps unions are a good thing in principle. So what about elected political parties then? Should they be banned?
you certainly don't need a union to achieve any of those things in the modern workplace
See how Fernades treated his employees?
Many employers will do the bare legal minimum they can get away with see also zero hours contract today for example
Any working group that thinks going on strike is a productive concept should be shot.
Its a fundamental human right to go on strike - no really it is - and shooting folk who withdraw their labour to gain fair treatment is what the bosses used to do when the law let them.
Most folk would agree a balance needs to be struck between the power of the employer to treat folk like shit and the power of the union to hold the employer to account.
Your solution is a poor one.
I'd best check the date. Have I just teleported into the industrial revolution or something?
See how Fernades treated his employees?
No need to feel sorry for F1 employees. They earn plenty and there are enough employment opportunities elsewhere for their skill set. No need for a union there.
If it hadn't been for the unions, then I'm sure shooting workers for getting uppity would actually be legal
I wouldn't be at all surprised if we see this is the Tory manifesto along with a re-introduction of slavery for the poor.
Many employers will do the bare legal minimum they can get away with
They will of course, but the bare legal minimum is not that bad today. Ever tried sacking someone recently? It's not as easy as you might think.
-Oldmanmtb -
Spot on, spot on.
Most folk would agree a balance needs to be struck between the power of the employer to treat folk like shit and the power of the union to hold the employer to account.
I'm just saying that TODAY (not a hundred years ago) you don't actually need a union to achieve this. But you do still need an elected government.
Anyway I still hated the unions more than Thatcher back in the day. That was my original point.
Many employees try and get away with doing the bare minimum as well, cuts both ways.
I'm just saying that TODAY (not a hundred years ago) you don't actually need a union to achieve this.
what do we need a good pamphlet campaign as these days employers are reasonable folk who like to protect workers? Naive
No need to feel sorry for F1 employees. They earn plenty and there are enough employment opportunities elsewhere for their skill set. No need for a union there.
WHOOSH the point you had to make was that a union would not have given them greater rights. Even the drivers have one and they are pretty well paid
Why is this as employers are so nice ?
whether you like the unions or not it is naive to think we can get what they achieved without them
You will be claiming that pensioners would get the triple lock if they did not vote next.
moshimonster - MemberI'm just saying that TODAY (not a hundred years ago) you don't actually need a union to achieve this.
Funny, in my last job my union were involved day to day to keep the employer in check. Now there are other channels that could be used for that but you don't want every bit of everyday bullshit having to go to tribunals etc- so ironically though individual managers hated being routinely shot down by the unions, the company recognised how valuable it was.
moshimonster - MemberAny working group that thinks going on strike is a productive concept should be shot.
Highly productive for me, got a backdated payrise and prevented a terms and conditions change.
Highly productive for me, got a backdated payrise and prevented a terms and conditions change.
That's not what I meant though is it.
what do we need a good pamphlet campaign as these days employers are reasonable folk who like to protect workers? Naive
There are employment laws today protecting "workers" and pretty strict ones at that. I guess that's why unions are less popular today. Maybe I am being naive but I've never thought for one second about joining a union to get decent working conditions.
Even the drivers have one and they are pretty well paid
I've always thought that was an oddity. But I only worked in F1 for 18 years so don't know a lot about the industry to be honest.
Anyway you union lovers are all still missing my original point. I'm not actually a union hater except for those who threaten strike action at every opportunity, which are thankfully quite rare today. I just hated the big unions back in the Thatcher days.
Maybe I am being naive
Yup. Frighteningly so.
Except for the bit when you wanted to shoot strikers
It's like being asked to choose between two particularly pungent and foul turds, you know - the type that you find unflushed in the lav that scream "lactose intolerant" or "had too much Guinness and bombay mix last night".
The only redeeming feature of either that I can possibly think of is that one of them has died.
Yup. Frighteningly so.
yeah whatever, I get by without union protection.
One thing that I notice here is quite a lot of hatred for employers. The very people who actually provide you with an income in the first place.
The current government would get rid of most of that stuff in a second if they thought they could get away with it. Unions are one of the main reasons why they can't.
Okay grum, since you are obviously an expert on employment law, explain to me (the naive moron) why the government would get rid of most employment law today if it wasn't for the unions? Serious question.
yeah whatever, I get by without union protection.
You do get union protection - even without being in a union, as I've tried to explain to you.
One thing that I notice here is quite a lot of hatred for employers.
Where? Crap straw man.
One thing that I notice here is quite a lot of hatred for employers. The very people who actually provide you with an income in the first place.
You sound like you think they're doing the workers a favour. You could also say they are cynically exploiting the workers efforts for profit. Or have a more balanced take on the subject....
I think you are being a bit goady and trolly and its pretty hard to work out what you really think whilst being pretty easy to judge what you are likeMaybe I am being naive
Its a bit boring as well tbh
Okay grum, since you are obviously an expert on employment law, explain to me (the naive moron) why the government would get rid of most employment law today if it wasn't for the unions?
Put very simply - because the people who fund the Tory party would be able to make more profits if they could get away with treating their employees worse. It's pretty obvious surely?
JY +1
cookeaa - MemberAs it is our energy needs are met mainly by various forms of gas fired station now (Open and closed cycle turbines) with some oil and gas fired boiler efforts a bit of ageing nuclear plant, plus some other minor stuff...
FWIW in Scotland, renewables are the biggest producer at about 40% (25% nuclear, 20% coal, and only about 6% gas- yes I know that's not 100% pedants, I did all the maths on my fingers). I know we're better together but in this instance I think we'll decline to take our turn at being bummed by Putin š
Okay grum, since you are obviously an expert on employment law, explain to me (the naive moron) why the government would get rid of most employment law today if it wasn't for the unions?
They already have reduced employment rights, as of 6/4/2012 you can be sacked without recourse to unfair dismissal in the first two years (was one year prior to this). They are also trying to erode the right to strike as once they can ban striking they can carry on eroding other rights.
I think you are being a bit goady and trolly
That's a bit rich coming from you.
Actually you are right though. I have zero interest in politics or unions. But I did really hate unions growing up in the 80's.
Where? Crap straw man.
I can smell the hatred from here.
Put very simply - because the people who fund the Tory party would be able to make more profits if they could get away with treating their employees worse. It's pretty obvious surely?
and the voters? Would they like it?
I am an employer and a strong supporter of good unionism - I was also a member of the AUEW for over 20 years. I would love to see some people on here try and negotiate a personal employment contract from ground zero.....
I would disagree with the comments on the previous page about unions securing workers rights, my son, teenager limited experience and skills has to accept a zero hours contract, other older people in family can sit around at home dicking about on the Internet get paid well and have great term of employment, the difference is market value not employment rights.
I understand quite a few employer obligation came from EU laws rather than Union battles but would agree that good employers know the value of happy staff but again it's the more widespread acceptance of that dynamic they has reduced the need for unions.
Lastly on a slight aside my recollection of the coal miners strike was a complete lack of unity on their part in fact the my only first hand experience was miners fighting miners.
I'm also an employer and feel the unions have, and continue to play an important role in the economy. Unions, like businesses [i]can[/i] at times become too dominant - a monopoly of labour is as dangerous to public interests as a monopoly of any other kind - but overall, many of the laws and conditions negotiated for UK workers have wide ranging benefits to both the public and the economy.
Just as (to paraphrase Tolstoy) an army is always best prepared to win the last battle it fought in, so we are now looking at yesterday's issues. At present, I do feel that many larger firms are effectively side-stepping a lot of obligations by using agency workers to a very high degree, skewing the playing field in their own favour.
Zero hour contracts should be banned, full stop. People should have a minimum number of hours guaranteed. You don't need Unions to enact employment protection laws.
Unions have bankrupted the US airlines and most of their car companies. Our car industry was given a huge helping hand into obscurity by the unions.
I am employer and thankfully unions are irrelevant. I have to keep staff, clients and shareholders happy. I fail if I ignore any of them. Shareholders know that I prefer to have relatively small teams that are paid more than elsewhere. They are happy, they work hard and enjoy it and they do a good jobs for clients. So everyone is happy. No need for external interference, it's really very simple. The unions could be useful and explain pensions to their members, that would be a good start.
Rights are indeed protected by Europe - and we respect them too. One of the benefits of EU membership.
and the voters? Would they like it?
Of course they wouldn't! But then that's where party spin departments come in to play.
For example:
"We want to invade Iraq. In doing so, we'll take control of state oil production, keep an increasingly belligerent Iran in check and demonstrate to the people of the middle east that we're not to be trifled with".
Read as:
"Saddam Hussein possesses WMD and the delivery mechanism to launch it at Britain within forty five minutes. They have mobile chemical/biological warfare laboratories producing tonnes of the stuff. We're also going to liberate the long-suffering people of Iraq".
Do you see?
I know we're better together but in this instance I think we'll decline to take our turn at being bummed by Putin
The only thing we get significantly from Russia energy wise is coal, unlike Eastern Europe we don't get any gas from there. Most of our gas comes from Norway, Qatar (LNG), and then from the Holland and Belgium interconnectors.
Do you see?
Not really if I'm honest.
we don't get any gas from there
What about Gazprom then? They are certainly becoming a big player in gas supply to UK businesses. Not a household name because they don't supply the domestic market (yet)
The unions could be useful and explain pensions to their members, that would be a good start.
They do an excellent job of explaining that employers are trying to erode them and you will pay more and be worse off.
QED
At present, I do feel that many larger firms are effectively side-stepping a lot of obligations by using agency workers to a very high degree, skewing the playing field in their own favour.
yes and no. Contracting can be better for individuals as well as for the employer - better pay, more flexibility to take time out, less need to fit in with the corporate culture etc.
My own experience with this is 3 1/2 years contracting on a sequence of contracts at the same client. Before that I lasted 8 months in a perm role in another company before being unceremoniously 'managed out' because a head of dept decided they didn't like me. All employment laws were bypassed by the simple technique of my manager telling outright lies to HR.
I have more job security as a contractor as I'm judged on whether I can get the job done (which I can) rather than the subjective views of one senior person who's able to exploit company hierarchy. I also get paid more as compensation for the lack of a perm contract so am no worse off financially.
So in this example, employment law gave me no advantage at all... a union might have stopped the gameplaying but would I have wanted to stay anyway?
Personally I don't see mass movement towards contractors instead of perm staff as a bad thing. It's another option, which may well suit people much better than the false security of a 'perm' contract...
What about Gazprom then? They are certainly becoming a big player in gas supply to UK businesses. Not a household name because they don't supply the domestic market (yet)
As I understand it they are just a trading arm in the UK and sell whatever gas they make money on e.g. they have contact with Centrica
[url= http://www.centrica.com/index.asp?pageid=1041&newsid=2572 ]Centrica Press Link[/url]
As I understand it they are just a trading arm in the UK and sell whatever gas they make money on e.g. they have contact with Centrica
No, it was Centrica who bought the gas FROM Gazprom, not the other way round. There is much argument about how much Russian gas is imported into the UK. Gazprom reckon around 15%, other sources disagree. Centrica don't even know themselves.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/21/uk-ukraine-crisis-energy-britain-idUKBREA2K16N20140321
Contracting can be better for individuals as well as for the employer - better pay, more flexibility to take time out, less need to fit in with the corporate culture etc.
Agency workers do not contract and they do not get paid more to compensate them for it. Comparing your example to a zero hour agency contract is comparing chalk and cheese
Surveys consistently show that the employers do not choose these employers make them do it.
employment law gave me no advantage at all
That is like claiming that because you got robbed the laws dont protect you?
dragon - MemberThe only thing we get significantly from Russia energy wise is coal, unlike Eastern Europe we don't get any gas from there.
World markets and distribution mean it's not that important exactly where your resource comes from any more though, a change in supply anywhere impacts price/availability.
Feel the benevolent warmth, people.
[img] 
?w=480&h=598[/img]
"Yes I've just bitten the head off a kitten. What's it to you?"
[i]scaredypants - Member
Feels a bit like comparing two dogshits, but ...
Thatcher, I think, was pretty straight-up about being unpleasant whereas Blair has the extra little boost of promising quite a lot (to me as a leftish leaner anyway) and then turning out to be a disingenuous, grasping, Machiavellian little shit all along.
Doesn't mean she was less nasty, just that she didn't arse about justifying it with a load of platitudes; pretty much just told the nation to **** off if we didn't like it (turns out a lot of the electorate liked to be treated rough, though)
I do wonder how much of Blair's scheming was down to Campbell really - again, Ingham was a bit more old school rather than a marketing man
On balance then, if only for that toe-curling ****yness that was the "now is not a time for soundbites ..." opening gambit,
Blair, by a nose[/i][i]
Both scum of the earth but agree Bliar by a short nose.
Wowzers!
I still can't believe the amount of people on here who, still think Thatcher and Blair ran the country. And still affiliate themselves to the mainstream political parties.
Watch 'the money masters' 3.5-hours of educational awareness
Both are equal of doing bad things
But I may say Blair as what dangers he has brought to our door step.
Correct. Then there are the other disadvantages - such as not being able to get a mortgage.Junkyard - lazarus
Agency workers do not contract and they do not get paid more to compensate them for it.
TBH, you are bang on the money. it is the unelected and anti-fragile that make most of the running from within Whitehall. Having parties to squabble over is a distraction really and, in many respects, also a hindrance, preventing logical, long term thinking and planning.steffybhoy - Member
Wowzers!
I still can't believe the amount of people on here who, still think Thatcher and Blair ran the country. And still affiliate themselves to the mainstream political parties.
Just as an aside, casual employees in Australia are guaranteed zero hours, have no unfair dismissal rights, no holiday pay, no sick pay...but they get a 25% premium over permanent employees. Seems like a fair balance between employer flexibility and worker self-protection.