Savings are great provided inflation is controlled - perhaps if labour had controlled inflation people may have looked at savings in a different light. You seem incapable of seeing any fault outside of Thatcher - labour's management of the economy was woeful as was its ability to manage the unions.

Take your example of a house deposit - you are saving up for a deposit but every year the true value of your pot is being reduced by the difference in the inflation rate and the interest rate. With high inflation you cannot save enough as the object you are saving for is costing 10-20% more each year.

The idea of wage slaves is yet another one of your barmy ideas - the need to work was no different under Thatcher as it was under Callaghan.

Your idea of personal debt comes back to the first point - with high inflation nobody is interested in saving - it is futile. You might as well borrow the money enjoy the item you bought.

Once again you didn't read my earlier posts - yes the firm has offered a pay rise but it does have a bonus scheme in place which rewards everyone if the firm does well - it pays out.

The idea of salary increases as an annual norm is crazy - why should a firm pay out more for nothing in return? Supply and demand will dictate what rate they have to pay - if they are under the market people will leave and they will not be able to recruit at the right level. They will have to pay more and then everyone's numbers will have to go up.

Take the industry I am in - print - we are not the only channel marketing can use to promote their products. We are up against TV, Radio, Electronic, Newspapers, BOGOF etc. So the print element of a campaign is say 100k for 1m items. I give all my staff a 5% salary increase with no productivity increases and material costs remain the same what happens to the cost of the product? So the client has three choices they stick with 1m and it costs more, they spend 100k and get less product or they look at other channels to spend their 100k where the ROI may be better - this is the reality we face 20-50 times a day. Add to that over-capacity and you have an industry that is in crisis - paying higher wages for nothing is unrealistic.

I don't care how much the CEO earns - in fact I only care about what I earn and whether that is sufficient to support my family. If it great if not - and that has been the case in the past - I have worked a second job until I could find the right job.

As for shareholders - without them you have no firm - so it is important that they get suitable recompensed for the level of risk they are taking? We also have share save schemes that anyone can participate - so it is to the benefit of all participants if share price and dividends increase.

The fact you would ignore someone simply because they disagreed with you and exerted their democratic right work says more about you as a person than anything you choose to post on here - a very sad and bitter individual.

Presumably this holds from both the employer and employee's perspectives then?

That is not what I suggested.

HTH

Many of the practices you outline had been changed [iprior[/i to privatisation. And more changes were in the pipeline. BT was modernising [iand[/i making a profit - largely because unions and management had sat down and actually agreed a modernisation program.

You really are quite silly, aren't you?

That makes no difference whatsoever.



I never once said it should be a criminal matter.



Agreed.



'Average' people do not refer to black people as 'gollis'.



It wasn't justification at all. People have used Thatcher's actions in office as justification for celebrating her death. That her son is a criminal and her daughter is a racist just means they don't really feel compelled to cease celebrating for their benefit.

Ding Dong The Bells Are Dead.

Well at least for the duration on Wednesday anyway.

Presumably the Met will be wading into the crowds to arrest anyone who as much as farts or sneezes. Be interesting to see if they kettle them all in afterwards as they would football fans.

They'll be heavy handed no doubt.

There was a Parkinson's sufferer on the BBC this morning who was speaking (inter alia the sort of misunderstandings that Parkinson's people have to endure) about the time the police arrested him because he was on the route of a bike race (Olympics, I think) and was "acting suspiciously".
The "acting suspiciously" was ... get this ... that he was not smiling.

Not so.
Back then, the BoE base rate was set high, so as to be higher than inflation, that's why it hit 17% during Thatcher's time.

At the moment, however, base rate is set very low indeed and is deliberately way below inflation, so the point you were making would be true now.

I fondly remember Geoffrey Howe hiking-up VAT and then a year later as that hike disappeared from the year-on-year stats, pointing at it as a decrease in inflation.
Some would have believed him.

You also asked why salaries should have to go up every year.
I think you've probably answered that one yourself ... without an annual rise, once you take inflation into account, the salary is (in real terms) going down, that's why many people think of a rise commensurate with inflation as their right.
Unfortunately, they are wrong, their contract of employment usually states a number of pounds per year and doesn't mention inflation... but you can see why they think as they do.
Many employers nowadays utilise inflation as a way of reducing the salaries of their lower or average performers, awarding catch-up raises (or better) only to the higher-performing staff.

I've never asked for a pay rise in my life, mind you I was self employed for 28 years of it, but still, since being an employee again I haven't asked for nor been given a pay rise, nor will I ask for one as I work on the principle that my employer will pay me what they think I'm worth.

Which might explain why I haven't had a pay rise since 2008 and the year before that I had a pay decrease (a big one).

Still, I know where I stand...

Thought this article from Sunday's Mail was good and best I've seen in the Press: www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... ilure.html

Thought this article from Sunday's Mail was good and best I've seen in the Press: www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... ilure.html

That's right, fancy thinking that a poor innocent footy fan could be violent. Ridiculous !

Don’t worry everyone !

I see George Galloway; the Champion of the loony left has come to the rescue, complete with a Botox job and a hefty old tan. Didn’t you just love him when he pretended to be a cat on Big Brother !

He's going to call for parliament to be convened during Maggie’s funeral. Of course he's the guy that called Saddam, indefatigable and kissed his ass and I see his mate Bob Crow has just called for another strike, déjà vu of the 70’s.

Given that the prat Blair, he of your lot who took us into two unnecessary wars, broke our economy and let millions of people into the Uk to nick your jobs. I wonder will we have a huge forum post to dance at his funeral given he directly stuck it to you lot.

dual post

You really are extraordinarily dim aren't you?

Much as I think Gallloway is nothing more than a self serving prat, he has a point here. Thatcher wasn't a touch on Churchill.

Even she didn't turn the troops out against miners.



Finally stopped drinking, starting again Wednesday.

Wilson won four elections.

Atlee oversaw the introduction of the greatest social changes in Britain for over a century.

Neither of them were treated like royalty when they died, despite both dying in periods when their party were in power. So what's different here?

one can only hope.

Maybe Wilson closed too many pits?

Nail on the head. More mining jobs went during Wilson's premiership than Thatcher's. Yet no one moans about him.

Pits have always closed, or scaled down, when the coal became too expensive to mine. My father and grandfather worked at a number of pits and moved about a fair bit. But they could usually find work somewhere. The problem with the 80's closure problem was that it was obvious that there wouldnt be jobs to be found elsewhere.

All of this is true ^^^

The area that I lived in during the 80s strike had been a mining area for 100 years or more, and before the nationalisation of the industry all of them were privately owned pits, often under-invested in order to scratch a living for the owners (anyone been to Lotherton Hall in Leeds to see how the owners scratched a living?).

The village I lived in had its pit closed in the early 60s and all around the area were former pit workings - by the 80s all of the mines had been amalgamated into one large one in Blyth and employees either left the industry (some gratefully, I never heard a retired pitman speak fondly of the job) or moved five miles up the road to the bigger pit.

Thats simply how it was, the closure program of the Thatcher era was unprecedented in its plan and swiftness and it was obvious that there would be nothing to replace the employment that it offered to those communities afterwards, which proved to be true, it would be eight years or more before EU money started to be invested into infrastructure and low or free rates offered to tempt businesses back into south yorkshire and northumberland.

Note the reference to EU money too...

He was a Labour PM. Beyond reproach. The left has never allowed facts to get in the way of their prejudice.

Theres only one person here waving a scarf in football supporter style whilst trying to avoid any facts and, erm...

its you

as per usual.