Halifax don't have any call centres in India. All UK based.

However.

Some are based in Leeds, and have a mix of people, some of whom are of Indian origin. These guys always got confused for being in India.

I speak as someone who's been on that side of the phone. With Halifax. And as they still pay my rent and bills every month, I'll say no more.

Most people agree that Thatcher had many faults, the a point of debate is what would have happened if Labour had remained in power?

Manufacturing would have slowed down regardless of who was in government, emerging economies in the Asia had already started to eat away at our large scale manufacturing base. Like it or not our inefficiency was not helped by the unions. Ineffective management didn't help either.

On the sell off most of the huge nationalised industries were union-dominated, under funded, inefficient and massive loss makers. It would have cost billions to drag them into the modern era - so to sell seems like a prudent cause of action.

With regards to mining - it could not compete with coal from other countries, it importance was massively overstated due to the high profile that Arthur maintained due to regular threats of strike. The numbers of miners had declined significantly over the previous twenty years.

...because of heavy investment in automation (just like lots of other industries that were labour intensive in the 1950s and 60s).

Just to give you an idea of the investment my brother-in-law worked underground at Bates Pit in Blyth Northumberland until the 84/85 strike, in the year before the strike the pit, which mined coal several miles out under the North Sea, had invested £1million in "intelligent" roof supports which were basically self adjusting, and massive pumping equipment - it was descibed as "state of the art" in the mining industry, anywhere in the world.

In the first month of the strike the pit was closed as maintenance was not completed as scheduled, it flooded and all of that equipment was lost underground.

As has been pointed out before, W Germany managed to continue with a strong manufacturing base, despite most industries being heavily unionised.



The cheap, brown coal that we imported from Australia and India may have cost less per tonne than British coal but it was of such poor calorific value that the price difference was negligible when costed on an energy-produced basis and helped push up the cost of producing British steel. Further factor in the extra welfare payments required and it had a negative impact on our economy.

Wasn't there an outcry at some point because we were importing coal mined by children?

Hey, it was "cheap" who cares?

As has also been pointed out before the relationship between the unions and the employers is significantly different to that of what existed and still exists in the UK. This relationship changed significantly at the time of the last major recession in Germany and the balance of power shifted to the employers, the unions in Germany have a very limited power base i.e. they seen the light whereby unrealistic pay and condition demands lead to loss of jobs. It helps when the bosses are also realistic about their own worth.

The relationship between German trades unions and management has never really changed at all, it never needed to and as has been proved here on numerous occasions, when British unions are invloved in decision making, there's far more chance of a equitable outcome. But please don't let that prevent you from your knocking of everything related to the trades union movement

Here's a little thingie to chuck in: how much did the decision by Rupert Murdoch to ban all independent trades unions from NI titles at Wapping, and replace them with an in-hpuse staff association, contribute to a culture of criminal and unethical behaviour being allowed to continue for such a long time?

More widely, [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/30/economic-policy-adam-smith?INTCMP=SRCHthis is fascinating on what Adam Smith might thing of the current situation.[/url

As usual we must agree to disagree - newsnight did a piece on Karcher about two weeks ago where the issue of union influence was discussed - the boss man explained how the unions had changed their tune significantly in the last 20 years. The collective arrangement still exists but the power had shifted to the bosses, this shift was a major factor in the success of Karcher over the past 20 years. Maybe Karcher are an isolated case - unlikely given the collective bargaining arrangement that has existed for 50+ years. It will be interesting to see how the rise of the Niche unions will impact Germany along with dwindling union membership. Strange how so few people can a see such a good thing as union membership (sic)!!

[url=http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/doing-a-cameron/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto"Even Cameron's expected mates aren't happy.[/url

Mind, the linked-to [iFT[/i story about whinging financiers is a hoot.

laughs hysterically and sends them out with nothing.

Oh dear, is that the best you can come up with?
OK, take the next general election.
Having experienced a term under the handbag rule, more people voted against her than for her.
Take the next after that, after people had experienced two terms, more people voted against her than for her.


See above, I am in the majority.

Some data [url=http://filestore.democraticaudit.com/file/e6eee12eab1b168f5553d3908c83f8b8-1304596667/av-briefing-no1.pdfhere[/url shows the disparity between votes cast per (main) parties and seats won in the 1983 general election (see fig 2).

Table 2 on page 6 shows that, from 1979 to 2005, the average vote share of the winning party was 41.4%.

But this is the same for every PM post 1945, isn't it?

Whether or not that is the case does not change the fact that you were factually incorrect and El Barbudo was factually correct.

The fact is that the majority of those who cast a vote in the elections in 1983 and 1987 did not cast a vote for the Conservative Party/Margaret Thatcher.

Seeing as [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9439452/Bounty-of-the-financial-crisis-whistle-blowers-on-tax-evasion-paid-1m.htmlHMRC are offering bounties to tax evasion whistle blowers[/url. I've just reported Barclays, Philip Green, Vodaphone and Lord Ashcroft.

I'm now popping down to the travel agents to arrange a trip to view my Seychelles retirement villa

Yes, of course.
That's the whole point.
Regardless of which PM you nominate as "the best" since, say 1945, the majority voted against them.
Hence, you cannot "prove" which one was best.

No, because we are debating whether the majority [inow[/i rank Thatcher as one of the best PM's we've had.

As a result, election results from the time cannot be used to determine whether the majority now consider her to be one of the best.

This is true. But you can offer an opinion, and mine is that she was one of the best and the polls do agree with me.

if you consider selling off the family silver and destroying the infrastructure of the country as a positive then yes, she was 'one of the best ' !

doesn't say much about the others then , does it ?

I mean, Mr Major left the economy in pretty good shape when Mr BLIAR took over so where does that rank him ?

Heaveninghelp.

Barbudo has been patiently explaining to you that, in terms of votes cast, she never won a majority at an election - certainly not after having served a term.

This is the best 'poll' you can get.

Now which part of this incredibly complex point do you have difficulty understanding?

Erm, no it's not. The debate is how the majority [inow[/i, not when she was elected consider Thatchers time as prime minister. Geddit?

Election votes at the time cannot determine how great a PM is viewed now. Funny though, as if she was as bad as you make out, strange how she was elected three times.

Destoryed infrastructure, sold off the family silver, etc, etc, etc, but elected three times, consistently voted in the top 5 greatest PM's of all time and is going to have a state funeral.

Terrible wasn't she.