| Loving Burnham's visions and promises 14:55 - Sep 29 with 16201 views | NthQldITFC |
To paraphrase: "I may have to pay a political price, but I'm going to do these things that our country needs."
Cue the usual, fossilised cynicism from both sides of the spectrum, but I have a good feeling about this bloke.
It won't be possible to achieve everything, but I'd rather someone took a political risk and gave it a bloody good go - there's no point pissing around with an eye on five years time, we need some fundamental change based on all of us, first of all, providing a solid, social base, and developing responsibly from there where possible. |  |
| |  |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 20:44 - Sep 30 with 1131 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 18:19 - Sep 30 by noggin |
But how does the state pension compare to the rest of Europe? |
Why don’t you look it up? Let’s take the Nordics, Norway’s we can disregard as it’s paid for by climate change. Denmark has a higher retirement age than the Uk and both there and Sweden the pension is slowly being shifted to the private sector and retirement ages increasing to reduce the burden on the state. Whilst £12k for a pension (as an example) isn’t a huge amount in isolation, that’s going to take the entire income tax and NI of two working people to fund on the average UK salary. That’s without funding any other public services
The ratio of tax payers to retirees has halved in the UK in the last 50 years, and that ratio is deteriorating even with record levels of migration. Countries like Germany can fund generous pensions for now because they have much lower debt than the UK. Denmark and Sweden are often used as examples of successful social democracies, and beat us in pretty much any standard of living metric. They have brought in radical overhauls of their state pension systems to maintain the quality of other services. However, Burnham has showed little bravery or vision, with a watered down plan, several years down the line. No doubt a different leader will be in place at that point and tear up the plans. [Post edited 1 Oct 9:36]
|  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 21:00 - Sep 30 with 1078 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:59 - Sep 30 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Again, more meaningless drivel. |
At this stage Benters is existing on pure sympathy! |  |
| "They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches." | | Poll: | What you watching. |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 02:06 - Oct 1 with 951 views | Ryorry |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:41 - Sep 30 by balcombeblue |
What's the part of Thatcherism that caused the damage? How do you think that's manifesting itself now compared to say France or Germany? How would you compare that to New Labour?
Brexit has had some drag on the UK economy, but France and Germany appear to be in structural decline too. Covid, oil prices driven by wars, all with no fiscal wriggle room due to the levels of historic debt. |
Are you being disingenuous? Because it’s hard to believe anyone with the slightest interest in politics would be unaware of the lasting damage she caused.
Short of time, so in brief -
Selling off social housing without replacing or rebuilding it -> catastrophic housing crisis.
Privatising utilities, esp energy and water - catastrophic siphoning of £££££££££ to shareholders instead of reinvesting into infrastructure -> appalling service failures & environmental impacts.
Monetarist policies, recession, pushing unemployment above 3 million, wiping out large sections of Britain's manufacturing.
Failing to understand the impact of closing mines on whole communities, failure to create alternative options for employmen/ retraining. Deliberately sabotaging mines that still had easily extractable rich seams by ensuring that they couldn’t be reopened - sheer vandalism.
Hard-hearted policies like removing free milk for 7-11 yr olds, impacting health of the poorest children.
And overall, her preaching that “there is no such thing as society”. Sowed the seeds of the haves and have-nots, ever widening gap between rich and poor, ‘I’m alright Jack’ -> today’s bitter divisions. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 03:42 - Oct 1 with 887 views | Benters |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 21:00 - Sep 30 by BanksterDebtSlave |
At this stage Benters is existing on pure sympathy! |
* Award Winner *  |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 04:14 - Oct 1 with 906 views | TownieRob |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:34 - Sep 30 by Mullet |
You brought up socialism. Don’t blame me because you can’t put together something which makes sense. |
Now I 'can't put together something that makes sense'. You really are quite the divisive chap, aren't you? I've stuck to the argument, you keep trying to make it personal. People can make their own minds up. I'll leave it there, again.. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 04:45 - Oct 1 with 858 views | Benters |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 04:14 - Oct 1 by TownieRob |
Now I 'can't put together something that makes sense'. You really are quite the divisive chap, aren't you? I've stuck to the argument, you keep trying to make it personal. People can make their own minds up. I'll leave it there, again.. |
Probably for the best. | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 06:18 - Oct 1 with 834 views | noggin |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 20:44 - Sep 30 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Why don’t you look it up? Let’s take the Nordics, Norway’s we can disregard as it’s paid for by climate change. Denmark has a higher retirement age than the Uk and both there and Sweden the pension is slowly being shifted to the private sector and retirement ages increasing to reduce the burden on the state. Whilst £12k for a pension (as an example) isn’t a huge amount in isolation, that’s going to take the entire income tax and NI of two working people to fund on the average UK salary. That’s without funding any other public services
The ratio of tax payers to retirees has halved in the UK in the last 50 years, and that ratio is deteriorating even with record levels of migration. Countries like Germany can fund generous pensions for now because they have much lower debt than the UK. Denmark and Sweden are often used as examples of successful social democracies, and beat us in pretty much any standard of living metric. They have brought in radical overhauls of their state pension systems to maintain the quality of other services. However, Burnham has showed little bravery or vision, with a watered down plan, several years down the line. No doubt a different leader will be in place at that point and tear up the plans. [Post edited 1 Oct 9:36]
|
"Norway’s we can disregard as it’s paid for by climate change"
Disregard it all you like but the UK is also allowing oil and gas to be extracted from the North Sea. The difference is, in Norway, the profits are invested for the Norwegian people.
I'm sure the likes of Harbour Energy pay their shareholders enough to invest in a nice pension though. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 07:19 - Oct 1 with 793 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 06:18 - Oct 1 by noggin |
"Norway’s we can disregard as it’s paid for by climate change"
Disregard it all you like but the UK is also allowing oil and gas to be extracted from the North Sea. The difference is, in Norway, the profits are invested for the Norwegian people.
I'm sure the likes of Harbour Energy pay their shareholders enough to invest in a nice pension though. |
The UK produces a fraction of the volumes of Norway, and whilst the UK has blocked new licences and fields, Norway has granted permission for Arctic exploration which is pretty deplorable and puts them up there with Russia in doing so.
And for your information the UK production is taxed at windfall rates of 78pc so the taxpayer DO benefit receiving far more of the profits than shareholders, with none of the enormous Capex that state ownership would require. UK is probably a better model in that regard.
Would also add that Equinor isn’t wholly state owned so there is shareholder benefit for the external /private investment, one of the reasons Norway has more billionaires per head than the UK.
[Post edited 1 Oct 7:48]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:11 - Oct 1 with 719 views | DJR |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 18:14 - Sep 30 by Pinewoodblue |
I’m on the basic state pension with a few add ons plus of course company pensions. The gap between the two pensions widens each year as the add ons are not linked to the triple lock. |
That's sad to hear. And I suppose it must grate when people assume you are in receipt of the the higher amount of the new state pension . |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:12 - Oct 1 with 716 views | Churchman |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 16:03 - Sep 30 by DJR |
I think the issue though is that many people of that age can't afford to contribute to a decent personal pension for reasons like low income, student loans and high housing costs.
Therefore, I think the state pension needs to remain.
Perhaps a conversation then needs to take place about whether people with private pension and other income above a certain figure (say, £50,000) should not get the state pension, should get it at a reduced amount, or should only get CPI increases. [Post edited 30 Sep 16:06]
|
Well, if HMG would like to refund all my pension contributions over decades adjusted with inflation and including the money spent buying addition pension years I’ll happily not take state pension.
The other problem is that if you are to take state pension from those who paid into it, why would anyone pay into a private pension if the state will provide? That’d be madness and would actually make the cost of provision to the hard working taxpayer higher in the long term.
Making comparisons between countries on pension provision is difficult. Before Lawson and Brown ruined it, the U.K. had some of the best pension provision in the world because it was mixed. Money purchase, final salary, savings, state. Final salary is in the bin and money purchase thanks to interference doesn’t pay as it once did. Savings? Firstly few under 35 give a hoot about paying into retirement - that’s for sad old people and besides, there are other priorities like children, foreign holidays and a chariot. Pensions? Not a priority.
This is the problem of putting the onus on people to provide for their own future. It’s just not important until one day the money runs out.
In terms of retirement income, the attached has some useful stuff:
https://www.unbiased.co.uk/dis
The following is about those pensioners who, not to sugar coat it, live in poverty.
https://www.independentage.org
Now what I haven’t looked at is reasons why. My guess is it’ll be a span from those who hosed all their money up the wall when younger all the way to people who are victim of circumstance through no fault of their own.
The triple lock? Aside from political value, it was brought in because state pension provision was and always had been woeful. I saw how my grandmother lived and know what it looked like. But now? Time to move on from it and whether it’s a single, double or mortise lock it needs amending. And that’s fine providing there is a review of the effects of any changes built in.
As for social care. Of course it needs joining up with the NHS. If you’ve ever seen how it works at present, you’ll know that it’s wasteful and frustrating for anyone having to navigate it on behalf of those who need it.
Too many thoughts - apologies |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:52 - Oct 1 with 669 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:12 - Oct 1 by Churchman |
Well, if HMG would like to refund all my pension contributions over decades adjusted with inflation and including the money spent buying addition pension years I’ll happily not take state pension.
The other problem is that if you are to take state pension from those who paid into it, why would anyone pay into a private pension if the state will provide? That’d be madness and would actually make the cost of provision to the hard working taxpayer higher in the long term.
Making comparisons between countries on pension provision is difficult. Before Lawson and Brown ruined it, the U.K. had some of the best pension provision in the world because it was mixed. Money purchase, final salary, savings, state. Final salary is in the bin and money purchase thanks to interference doesn’t pay as it once did. Savings? Firstly few under 35 give a hoot about paying into retirement - that’s for sad old people and besides, there are other priorities like children, foreign holidays and a chariot. Pensions? Not a priority.
This is the problem of putting the onus on people to provide for their own future. It’s just not important until one day the money runs out.
In terms of retirement income, the attached has some useful stuff:
https://www.unbiased.co.uk/dis
The following is about those pensioners who, not to sugar coat it, live in poverty.
https://www.independentage.org
Now what I haven’t looked at is reasons why. My guess is it’ll be a span from those who hosed all their money up the wall when younger all the way to people who are victim of circumstance through no fault of their own.
The triple lock? Aside from political value, it was brought in because state pension provision was and always had been woeful. I saw how my grandmother lived and know what it looked like. But now? Time to move on from it and whether it’s a single, double or mortise lock it needs amending. And that’s fine providing there is a review of the effects of any changes built in.
As for social care. Of course it needs joining up with the NHS. If you’ve ever seen how it works at present, you’ll know that it’s wasteful and frustrating for anyone having to navigate it on behalf of those who need it.
Too many thoughts - apologies |
Reform doesnt need to penalise those people currently taking a pension, and relying on it to get by, these kind of attack lines just obsfucate conversations which is why govts tend to avoid any real reform.
The problem is people never paid in enough, and that money was spent rather than invested and compounded.
For all the talk of fairness to those who paid in, where is the fairness to the young of today, who are funding state pensions for the retired, yet are unlikely to receive one when they retire, and if it does exist at a much higher age. The longer we maintain the current Ponzi scheme, the longer the young get shafted.
In terms of shifting to private schemes, it works fine in other countries - it isn’t putting the onus on the individual, can be written into legislation. We are already compulsory schemes, they just need expanded. The govt is also completely short sighted raiding peoples ISA’s and pensions, they’ll just increase the cost of retirement to the state - but again that’s a future govt problem so they do it anyway. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:11 - Oct 1 with 644 views | giant_stow |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:52 - Oct 1 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Reform doesnt need to penalise those people currently taking a pension, and relying on it to get by, these kind of attack lines just obsfucate conversations which is why govts tend to avoid any real reform.
The problem is people never paid in enough, and that money was spent rather than invested and compounded.
For all the talk of fairness to those who paid in, where is the fairness to the young of today, who are funding state pensions for the retired, yet are unlikely to receive one when they retire, and if it does exist at a much higher age. The longer we maintain the current Ponzi scheme, the longer the young get shafted.
In terms of shifting to private schemes, it works fine in other countries - it isn’t putting the onus on the individual, can be written into legislation. We are already compulsory schemes, they just need expanded. The govt is also completely short sighted raiding peoples ISA’s and pensions, they’ll just increase the cost of retirement to the state - but again that’s a future govt problem so they do it anyway. |
"For all the talk of fairness to those who paid in, where is the fairness to the young of today, who are funding state pensions for the retired, yet are unlikely to receive one when they retire, and if it does exist at a much higher age. The longer we maintain the current Ponzi scheme, the longer the young get shafted."
So bang on.
And I type as a turkey voting for Christmas here (no private pension, no prospect of a private pension, aged 52), but this is about fairness to the young who will never have the live the generations above did. |  |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:16 - Oct 1 with 621 views | lowhouseblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:52 - Oct 1 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Reform doesnt need to penalise those people currently taking a pension, and relying on it to get by, these kind of attack lines just obsfucate conversations which is why govts tend to avoid any real reform.
The problem is people never paid in enough, and that money was spent rather than invested and compounded.
For all the talk of fairness to those who paid in, where is the fairness to the young of today, who are funding state pensions for the retired, yet are unlikely to receive one when they retire, and if it does exist at a much higher age. The longer we maintain the current Ponzi scheme, the longer the young get shafted.
In terms of shifting to private schemes, it works fine in other countries - it isn’t putting the onus on the individual, can be written into legislation. We are already compulsory schemes, they just need expanded. The govt is also completely short sighted raiding peoples ISA’s and pensions, they’ll just increase the cost of retirement to the state - but again that’s a future govt problem so they do it anyway. |
it also seems legitimate to see the state pension as an insurance scheme, and therefore to pull some of it back from people who already have high incomes. it seems wrong to be paying the full state pension to people who are also paying the additional tax rate at a time of a fiscal crisis. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:35 - Oct 1 with 589 views | DJR |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:16 - Oct 1 by lowhouseblue |
it also seems legitimate to see the state pension as an insurance scheme, and therefore to pull some of it back from people who already have high incomes. it seems wrong to be paying the full state pension to people who are also paying the additional tax rate at a time of a fiscal crisis. |
It would be difficult legally to reduce or take the state pension away from those that already receive it, and it could be said to be unfair to do the same in the future for those who have paid NI contributions all their life, even though NI isn't hypothecated and merely goes into a big pot along with other taxes.
One solution that strikes me would to make the state pension subject to NI contributions for those whose other income is above a certain amount. If the state pension for such people was also limited to CPI increases, that would also cut down the cost.
Of course, this would at to the complexity of what is a universal payment. But I believe it is important to keep to the principle of there being a state pension for all. [Post edited 1 Oct 10:57]
| | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:38 - Oct 1 with 575 views | Churchman |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 08:52 - Oct 1 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Reform doesnt need to penalise those people currently taking a pension, and relying on it to get by, these kind of attack lines just obsfucate conversations which is why govts tend to avoid any real reform.
The problem is people never paid in enough, and that money was spent rather than invested and compounded.
For all the talk of fairness to those who paid in, where is the fairness to the young of today, who are funding state pensions for the retired, yet are unlikely to receive one when they retire, and if it does exist at a much higher age. The longer we maintain the current Ponzi scheme, the longer the young get shafted.
In terms of shifting to private schemes, it works fine in other countries - it isn’t putting the onus on the individual, can be written into legislation. We are already compulsory schemes, they just need expanded. The govt is also completely short sighted raiding peoples ISA’s and pensions, they’ll just increase the cost of retirement to the state - but again that’s a future govt problem so they do it anyway. |
Where was the fairness to the young of yesterday? We were all young once you know and while the problems maybe different now trust me, it was certainly no easier back then. And don’t forget, if you are lucky, you might make retirement age one day when I suspect your perceptions might alter.
The actual reality here is that I paid considerable amounts of NI over a very long time. Unlike say some self employed people, I had no choice in that and that was fine. I pay significant tax to this day. Ironically, remove state pension and what I pay in tax will of course reduce.
As I said, refund me my contributions adjusted for inflation and I’ll happily not take my state pension. It’s not an attack line as I see it. The only attack line I see is your expectation that I pay a lifetime of NI and get diddly squat back for it because I chose to protect my future while others (not those who have fallen on hard times or victims of circumstance) chose Aya Napa.
I would add that for some, like a good friend of mine, they pay in all their lives and due to illness will get very little back. Swings and roundabouts.
An obvious solution is no NI, just one rate of tax. That’d mean that pensioners with income like me would be effectively paying NI again. I’d have no problem with that at all. The government would because the people would see how much they’re getting shaken down and would get booted out (as told to me by a Treasury person when I raised it as a thought).
You may view state pension as a Ponzi scheme. I view it as a mark of civilisation that people are looked after in old age.
I repeat, nothing wrong with repealing triple lock and I wouldn’t wait to the next election. I’d do it now. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:07 - Oct 1 with 550 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:38 - Oct 1 by Churchman |
Where was the fairness to the young of yesterday? We were all young once you know and while the problems maybe different now trust me, it was certainly no easier back then. And don’t forget, if you are lucky, you might make retirement age one day when I suspect your perceptions might alter.
The actual reality here is that I paid considerable amounts of NI over a very long time. Unlike say some self employed people, I had no choice in that and that was fine. I pay significant tax to this day. Ironically, remove state pension and what I pay in tax will of course reduce.
As I said, refund me my contributions adjusted for inflation and I’ll happily not take my state pension. It’s not an attack line as I see it. The only attack line I see is your expectation that I pay a lifetime of NI and get diddly squat back for it because I chose to protect my future while others (not those who have fallen on hard times or victims of circumstance) chose Aya Napa.
I would add that for some, like a good friend of mine, they pay in all their lives and due to illness will get very little back. Swings and roundabouts.
An obvious solution is no NI, just one rate of tax. That’d mean that pensioners with income like me would be effectively paying NI again. I’d have no problem with that at all. The government would because the people would see how much they’re getting shaken down and would get booted out (as told to me by a Treasury person when I raised it as a thought).
You may view state pension as a Ponzi scheme. I view it as a mark of civilisation that people are looked after in old age.
I repeat, nothing wrong with repealing triple lock and I wouldn’t wait to the next election. I’d do it now. |
Again, it doesn’t need to penalise those people currently drawing state pensions. At no point has anyone suggested we should just suddenly end the state pension and leave everyone destitute.
It can be tapered away (as it is being done by constantly raising the retirement age*), it just needs to be done faster.
*which is worse because the govt isn’t providing any alternative to working longer. [Post edited 1 Oct 10:12]
| | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:28 - Oct 1 with 515 views | mellowblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 02:06 - Oct 1 by Ryorry |
Are you being disingenuous? Because it’s hard to believe anyone with the slightest interest in politics would be unaware of the lasting damage she caused.
Short of time, so in brief -
Selling off social housing without replacing or rebuilding it -> catastrophic housing crisis.
Privatising utilities, esp energy and water - catastrophic siphoning of £££££££££ to shareholders instead of reinvesting into infrastructure -> appalling service failures & environmental impacts.
Monetarist policies, recession, pushing unemployment above 3 million, wiping out large sections of Britain's manufacturing.
Failing to understand the impact of closing mines on whole communities, failure to create alternative options for employmen/ retraining. Deliberately sabotaging mines that still had easily extractable rich seams by ensuring that they couldn’t be reopened - sheer vandalism.
Hard-hearted policies like removing free milk for 7-11 yr olds, impacting health of the poorest children.
And overall, her preaching that “there is no such thing as society”. Sowed the seeds of the haves and have-nots, ever widening gap between rich and poor, ‘I’m alright Jack’ -> today’s bitter divisions. |
You are kind of missing the point that Thatcherism has little to do with economic issues today. After all it was 40 years ago. The world has moved on. Agree that decisions made then still resonate today.
Re the milk thing, it was Treasury pressure that brought that about and as Education Sec she had the joyous job to announce it. She did water the plans down so that those younger could still have it. I believe it was the next Labour government that then withdrew milk for 4-7 year olds, possibly a greater crime than Thatcher's. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:58 - Oct 1 with 456 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 02:06 - Oct 1 by Ryorry |
Are you being disingenuous? Because it’s hard to believe anyone with the slightest interest in politics would be unaware of the lasting damage she caused.
Short of time, so in brief -
Selling off social housing without replacing or rebuilding it -> catastrophic housing crisis.
Privatising utilities, esp energy and water - catastrophic siphoning of £££££££££ to shareholders instead of reinvesting into infrastructure -> appalling service failures & environmental impacts.
Monetarist policies, recession, pushing unemployment above 3 million, wiping out large sections of Britain's manufacturing.
Failing to understand the impact of closing mines on whole communities, failure to create alternative options for employmen/ retraining. Deliberately sabotaging mines that still had easily extractable rich seams by ensuring that they couldn’t be reopened - sheer vandalism.
Hard-hearted policies like removing free milk for 7-11 yr olds, impacting health of the poorest children.
And overall, her preaching that “there is no such thing as society”. Sowed the seeds of the haves and have-nots, ever widening gap between rich and poor, ‘I’m alright Jack’ -> today’s bitter divisions. |
Not being disingenuous at all, I jut have a very different take on history to you I suspect.
Social Housing - The other half the argument was that social mobility was accelerated for many working class people who had the means to build capital in the form of property rather than transferring earnings to the state. Thatcher's government built more home (including council owned) than Blair's, although I accept you are not making a pro-Blair argument. During Thatcher's government more council houses were actually built than all governments since put together.
Privatising Utilities - I agree this has not been a success at all. Opportunities to fine tune the outcome have been missed. The size of the failure does depend on the precise market though.
Monetarism - Again, I think you have only provided part of the argument. the UK had spiralling inflation, an uncompetitive labour market and an economy that desperately needed to modernise after some very dark days of the 1970s. Unemployment fell rapidly towards the end of her government. The argument here is whether or not the pain was worth the outcome. That depends on your viewpoint. It's debatable, but sticking ourselves to an uncompetitive construction based economy would have caused issues too.
No such thing as society - I am sure you are fair-minded so here is the full quote. I agree with every word in there. The fact that people think the government can sort every issue in society is a significant chunk of the problem that we have today.
"I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand 'I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!' ... and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing as society! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first."
Milk Snatching - I mean, it's a nice line but again the reality of this policy is very different to how you portrayed. She completed the legislation which was started by Harold Wilson.
Inflation defeated, London an economic centre, some loss making state businesses sold given more people access to capital, the Falklands, The EU rebate. Plenty there to further discuss.
I stand by my main point that pointing to Thatcher (and events since) is a happy nail for the left's hammer to bash. But virtually all of the supposed failures of her time are debatable and certainly not unique. |  | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:59 - Oct 1 with 449 views | Ryorry |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:28 - Oct 1 by mellowblue |
You are kind of missing the point that Thatcherism has little to do with economic issues today. After all it was 40 years ago. The world has moved on. Agree that decisions made then still resonate today.
Re the milk thing, it was Treasury pressure that brought that about and as Education Sec she had the joyous job to announce it. She did water the plans down so that those younger could still have it. I believe it was the next Labour government that then withdrew milk for 4-7 year olds, possibly a greater crime than Thatcher's. |
“You are kind of missing the point that Thatcherism has little to do with economic issues today”.
I totally disagree with you. The impact of privatisation in driving up prices for consumers whilst reducing services couldn’t be clearer; the impact of homelessness and the housing crisis that she started couldn’t be clearer.
Above all, you are missing the point that her teaching a whole generation that selfishness, greed and entitlement were not only legitimate as a modus operandi for life, but desirable, was a toxic philosophy that has passed on to the next generation, and affects every aspect of society today, from economic policy to health, housing, food supply/security, transport, infrastructure, the state of high streets, pubs closing, social ‘feel’ etc etc.
I accept your point about the withdrawal of free milk though! | |
| |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:03 - Oct 1 with 440 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 09:38 - Oct 1 by Churchman |
Where was the fairness to the young of yesterday? We were all young once you know and while the problems maybe different now trust me, it was certainly no easier back then. And don’t forget, if you are lucky, you might make retirement age one day when I suspect your perceptions might alter.
The actual reality here is that I paid considerable amounts of NI over a very long time. Unlike say some self employed people, I had no choice in that and that was fine. I pay significant tax to this day. Ironically, remove state pension and what I pay in tax will of course reduce.
As I said, refund me my contributions adjusted for inflation and I’ll happily not take my state pension. It’s not an attack line as I see it. The only attack line I see is your expectation that I pay a lifetime of NI and get diddly squat back for it because I chose to protect my future while others (not those who have fallen on hard times or victims of circumstance) chose Aya Napa.
I would add that for some, like a good friend of mine, they pay in all their lives and due to illness will get very little back. Swings and roundabouts.
An obvious solution is no NI, just one rate of tax. That’d mean that pensioners with income like me would be effectively paying NI again. I’d have no problem with that at all. The government would because the people would see how much they’re getting shaken down and would get booted out (as told to me by a Treasury person when I raised it as a thought).
You may view state pension as a Ponzi scheme. I view it as a mark of civilisation that people are looked after in old age.
I repeat, nothing wrong with repealing triple lock and I wouldn’t wait to the next election. I’d do it now. |
Welcome to socialism and social democracy. The only money socialist have to spend is ours.
Enjoying the attempt by Burnham's cabinet to explain how social care reforms (and anything for that matter) will be paid for. As the months roll past, gilt rates continue to trend upwards with absolutely no honesty from this government about how that will impact spending. | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:09 - Oct 1 with 431 views | DJR |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:58 - Oct 1 by balcombeblue |
Not being disingenuous at all, I jut have a very different take on history to you I suspect.
Social Housing - The other half the argument was that social mobility was accelerated for many working class people who had the means to build capital in the form of property rather than transferring earnings to the state. Thatcher's government built more home (including council owned) than Blair's, although I accept you are not making a pro-Blair argument. During Thatcher's government more council houses were actually built than all governments since put together.
Privatising Utilities - I agree this has not been a success at all. Opportunities to fine tune the outcome have been missed. The size of the failure does depend on the precise market though.
Monetarism - Again, I think you have only provided part of the argument. the UK had spiralling inflation, an uncompetitive labour market and an economy that desperately needed to modernise after some very dark days of the 1970s. Unemployment fell rapidly towards the end of her government. The argument here is whether or not the pain was worth the outcome. That depends on your viewpoint. It's debatable, but sticking ourselves to an uncompetitive construction based economy would have caused issues too.
No such thing as society - I am sure you are fair-minded so here is the full quote. I agree with every word in there. The fact that people think the government can sort every issue in society is a significant chunk of the problem that we have today.
"I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand 'I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!' ... and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing as society! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first."
Milk Snatching - I mean, it's a nice line but again the reality of this policy is very different to how you portrayed. She completed the legislation which was started by Harold Wilson.
Inflation defeated, London an economic centre, some loss making state businesses sold given more people access to capital, the Falklands, The EU rebate. Plenty there to further discuss.
I stand by my main point that pointing to Thatcher (and events since) is a happy nail for the left's hammer to bash. But virtually all of the supposed failures of her time are debatable and certainly not unique. |
My argument would be that 1979 market the post-war consensus in this country for western European-style social democracy: Harold MacMillan, for instance, warned about selling off the family silver.
Of course, Blair carried this on as illustrated by the following.
"In 2002, twelve years after Margaret Thatcher left office, she was asked, at a dinner for a Conservative politician Conor Burns, what her greatest achievement was. Thatcher replied: “Tony Blair and New Labour. We forced our opponents to change their minds.”
Cameron then became the "heir to Blair".
Indeed, it could be argued that Boris Johnson was an exception to the rule, being at heart a One Nation Tory, and thus not averse to splashing the cash or involving the state.
And of course, countries in western Europe face similar issues these days to the UK but they appear to have in place much better public services, perhaps best illustrated by the fact that Germany offered hospital beds to Covid patients from outside its borders.
And interestingly, Burnham's proposals for social care are social democratic in the sense that they are designed to pool the risk. [Post edited 1 Oct 11:29]
| | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:28 - Oct 1 with 386 views | balcombeblue |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 11:09 - Oct 1 by DJR |
My argument would be that 1979 market the post-war consensus in this country for western European-style social democracy: Harold MacMillan, for instance, warned about selling off the family silver.
Of course, Blair carried this on as illustrated by the following.
"In 2002, twelve years after Margaret Thatcher left office, she was asked, at a dinner for a Conservative politician Conor Burns, what her greatest achievement was. Thatcher replied: “Tony Blair and New Labour. We forced our opponents to change their minds.”
Cameron then became the "heir to Blair".
Indeed, it could be argued that Boris Johnson was an exception to the rule, being at heart a One Nation Tory, and thus not averse to splashing the cash or involving the state.
And of course, countries in western Europe face similar issues these days to the UK but they appear to have in place much better public services, perhaps best illustrated by the fact that Germany offered hospital beds to Covid patients from outside its borders.
And interestingly, Burnham's proposals for social care are social democratic in the sense that they are designed to pool the risk. [Post edited 1 Oct 11:29]
|
It’s possible to cherry pick examples to compare with other countries, but that always avoids domestic realities prevalent at the time.
In 1980 Britain and west Germany were not remotely comparable. We had high inflation and a crippled level of productivity by comparison. We were supporting inefficient loss making industries. Germany was not even 40 years post rebuilding.
How did we get there? Excessive public spending, union power and an IMF bailout!
Are you sensing one I am that we are heading straight back there? | | | |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 12:27 - Oct 1 with 283 views | Mullet |
| Loving Burnham's visions and promises on 10:28 - Oct 1 by mellowblue |
You are kind of missing the point that Thatcherism has little to do with economic issues today. After all it was 40 years ago. The world has moved on. Agree that decisions made then still resonate today.
Re the milk thing, it was Treasury pressure that brought that about and as Education Sec she had the joyous job to announce it. She did water the plans down so that those younger could still have it. I believe it was the next Labour government that then withdrew milk for 4-7 year olds, possibly a greater crime than Thatcher's. |
Absolute nonsense - not only has the effects of 40 years ago shaped today, but the ideological shift, greed, social decay etc are all being compounded by people who think she was right. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
