It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Just answered this question in a previous reply to you.
Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
The unions may have had a great deal of power but completely removing them from the equation of politics i feel has done a great deal of harm to the working classes.
Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Riot? No.
Gather? Yes.
Celebrate without violence or damage to property and the like? Yes.
Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Calling people low-lifes is a bit harsh i believe. Working class people now have such a stigma in this country because they cant survive in post-thatcher's Briton - they're being blamed for it like its their own fault.
Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Seems to be no difference between left and right these days in parliament.
Originally posted by doobydoll
reply to post by stumason
Higher wages mean higher subs for the Unions, which means cosier pads for the likes of Skargill to live in rent free while collecting six figure pensions.. Proper man of the people, real workers champion....
You mean like MP's do now? Except they dip in the taxpayer pot instead of union chiefs dipping in the subs.
Whatever Scargill got out of it, at least we all could enjoy a decent life back then, not just rich folk and MP's.
Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Originally posted by Rocker2013
Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Originally posted by Rocker2013
Originally posted by ken10
Income inequality among working-age people has risen faster in Britain than in any other rich nation since the mid-1970s, according to a report by the OECD.
Source
Right, and that's the fault of a woman who left power 20 years ago? I don't see Labour or the current ConDem government fixing that.
Actually it is, She sold off most of the council house's and didnt build any replacements, now we have a generation of people unable to move out because landlords are expensive and getting a mortgage on your first house is impossible.
I am one of those people!
But, my parents were able to buy their council house and give our family a home because of that policy. So who do I blame for me not being able to have a house, her for doing that for my parents, or all the other governments since who have done nothing to kick start house building to keep the plan going?
I know who I blame, and I blame all those governments who have failed to renew the national housing stock since then, and have allowed private building companies to buy up land and hold it, preventing development.
Once again, you're blaming one woman for the mistakes of all the corrupt governments since her. And you're ignoring the fact that she was vocally anti-corporation.
Yes but you see she PROMOTED the idea of home ownership and PREVENTED more homes being built - so yes, i AM blaming her!
Originally posted by Rocker2013
Yes, she promoted the idea of home ownership, and you think that's a bad thing? Did your parents buy their council house? If they did, what would they have done if they were not given that opportunity?
Because my parents could, we had a home, and when they passed on, my sisters and I had an inheritance that we would not have had otherwise.
And how did she PREVENT homes from being built? Was she controlling all politicians since she left office like some kind of criminal mastermind?
That's absolutely ridiculous. You're seemingly suggesting outright that she is responsible for all the failings of the governments after her, and that's just crazy.
What? Do you even remember the 70/80's? Jeebus.... It's a time I'd rather have burned from my memory, what a dreary and depressing place it was. Decent life? We had no central heating, we ate the cheapest of cheap foods, my dads car was a rustbucket and we didn't own a family home... It wasn't until 1987 that my Dad finally bought his first house and things gradually improved from the
No doubt the North was hit hardest... but she didn't destroy Britain as I keep on seeing people say. This is why opinion is so split on her and all the threads in the world will never resolve this.
If the rest of the country separated from London where would all the money come from? Londoners sure wouldn't care I'm sure.
Originally posted by christina-66
reply to post by II HAL II
No doubt the North was hit hardest... but she didn't destroy Britain as I keep on seeing people say. This is why opinion is so split on her and all the threads in the world will never resolve this.
If the rest of the country separated from London where would all the money come from? Londoners sure wouldn't care I'm sure.
You have got to be kidding me! So soon after a bailout of a magnitude we have never before witnessed - and will be paying off for decades you can type this? Did you have a straight face?
Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Elvis Hendrix
I cannot dispute that, perhaps, that particular nature has come to the fore in recent years, but I wouldn't tar the whole nation with it - most are still friendly, community spirited folk who just want to lead a quiet life. It has to be said that the "I'm alright Jack" culture has always been around. Personally, I think it has really come to the front since the mid 90's and especially so since the New Labour experiments...
Originally posted by Rocker2013
Originally posted by doobydoll
reply to post by stumason
Higher wages mean higher subs for the Unions, which means cosier pads for the likes of Skargill to live in rent free while collecting six figure pensions.. Proper man of the people, real workers champion....
You mean like MP's do now? Except they dip in the taxpayer pot instead of union chiefs dipping in the subs.
Whatever Scargill got out of it, at least we all could enjoy a decent life back then, not just rich folk and MP's.
But that's just it, people were not enjoying a higher quality of life back then! You're rewriting history to justify your animosity towards one woman!
It is a matter of recorded fact that the mining industry had already collapsed, they were holding the entire nation to ransom with blackouts, demanding insane wage hikes and threatening the democratic process!
The nation was in a massive decline, we still hadn't recovered from WW2. You're imagining some utopian existence of economic equality that simply didn't exist!
Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by Rocker2013
I don't think it's a case of a job being 'beneath' them ... but rather that they would prefer not to
go esout every week to work for what they can get for being out of work (basic rates minus
fares etc.)
You have worked yourself from minimum wage and progressed to a better position. As I see
it No one wants to start at the bottom these days!