Maggie Knew...

[Dorkins]

I am quite a distance right from the centre.

I think that we should pay teachers and specialists (beyond the GP level) more than they get now.

I think that we should limit local government worker pay to the pay for equivalent national government worker. Surely a council Chief Executive should not be paid more than the PM. A police commissioner should not be paid more than the Minister of Defence.

We need to get rid of quangoes and other non jobs. We can shrink the size of the state without any of the users of state services noticing any difference. The shrinkage will come at the expense of all of those doing "non-jobs".

We need to give more to those whose ability to contribute to wealth will not provide them with an acceptable standard of living. We need to give much less to those who are not contributing as much to national wealth as they could.

We need to be honest with ourselves and bring the PV of all state obligations onto the books when we try to determine our actual fiscal position.

My argument about the appropriate size of the state is more arithmetic than ideological. We simply cannot carry on the way that we are going. The survival of our social safety net demands a complete re-examination of how we spend every single penny and a ruthless reduction in waste.

Yeah, I agree. I think Bloo Loo's idea of cutting public sector pay by 50% of whatever they earn over £25k is the right sort of idea. I'd be absolutely fascinated to see the numbers, might try and dig them up. Also the council/university/quango CEOs on £200k+, give me a break. Nobody doing a PAYE office job that they saw advertised in a newspaper and had to interview for should be making that sort of money. Those guys should be on £80-100k max, and all their underlings adjusted downwards appropriately. Too many rich white people in suits making a killing in both sectors. I don't know how many genuine 'non-jobs' there are, I know the Daily Mail finds a few but it's just not the case that 25% of public sector employees are diversity officers working with the transgendered community. Anyway, find them and cut them. I think Britain should have a great welfare state with good schools and hospitals, and I'm happy to have a government spending 40-45% of GDP as long as it's paying for it honestly through taxes and not borrowing from future generations of taxpayers. But at the moment GDP is collapsing as the private sector falls back to non-bubble levels, and the state has to shrink to match it.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Dorkins

[Guest Noodle]

Then in 1984 she went to war with the working class.

Then in 1985 she instigated the Big Bang deregulation of the City sowing the seeds to our present day economic crises.

Why doesnt she get on the telly and be interviewed properly. Oh yes she is a gibbering idiot.

But then again she always was a gibbering idiot.

Yep. Parkinson.

[LuckyOne]

Yeah, I agree. I think Bloo Loo's idea of cutting public sector pay by 50% of whatever they earn over £25k is the right sort of idea. I'd be absolutely fascinated to see the numbers, might try and dig them up. Also the council/university/quango CEOs on £200k+, give me a break. Nobody doing a PAYE office job that they saw advertised in a newspaper and had to interview for should be making that sort of money. Those guys should be on £80-100k max, and all their underlings adjusted downwards appropriately. Too many rich white people in suits making a killing in both sectors. I don't know how many genuine 'non-jobs' there are, I know the Daily Mail finds a few but it's just not the case that 25% of public sector employees are diversity officers working with the transgendered community. Anyway, find them and cut them. I think Britain should have a great welfare state with good schools and hospitals, and I'm happy to have a government spending up 40-45% of GDP as long as it's paying for it honestly through taxes and not borrowing from future generations of taxpayers. But at the moment GDP is collapsing as the private sector falls back to non-bubble levels, and the state has to shrink to match it.

I agree that the DM is guilty of trying to extrapolate a few examples into a societal epedemic.

The solution that I see to this problem is in the approach that Guiliani (sp?) took to crime in NY.

He basically said that by punishing even the smallest crime, you will reduce overall crime figures dramatically.

People laughed at him and complained that his measures were too draconian. That said, his methods worked. Giving tickets to jaywalkers sent a message to everyone else and crime in NY fell by something like 21% during his tenure.

We need a similar bottom up approach to solving our spending problem rather than the top down approach that we seem to be taking.

I am not sure whether we will need a 40% to 45% of GDP spending level by the state to get us to where we want to go if we are ruthless in demanding value for money from the state.

[kenny dalglish]

I am quite a distance right from the centre.

I think that we should pay teachers and specialists (beyond the GP level) more than they get now.

I think that we should limit local government worker pay to the pay for equivalent national government worker. Surely a council Chief Executive should not be paid more than the PM. A police commissioner should not be paid more than the Minister of Defence.

We need to get rid of quangoes and other non jobs. We can shrink the size of the state without any of the users of state services noticing any difference. The shrinkage will come at the expense of all of those doing "non-jobs".

We need to give more to those whose ability to contribute to wealth will not provide them with an acceptable standard of living. We need to give much less to those who are not contributing as much to national wealth as they could.

We need to be honest with ourselves and bring the PV of all state obligations onto the books when we try to determine our actual fiscal position.

My argument about the appropriate size of the state is more arithmetic than ideological. We simply cannot carry on the way that we are going. The survival of our social safety net demands a complete re-examination of how we spend every single penny and a ruthless reduction in waste.

All reasonable points, but this like many threads on these board miss the point. The thread is debating the wrong issue. If I was a conspiracy theorist (which I am not) I would say that if certain priveleged members of society, should ever stumble onto these boards by mistake, would be very relieved to see that it's business as usual and the masses squabbling amongst themselves, rather than turning their eyes to the real cuplrits. "It's a bloated public sector", "it's dole scroungers,"it's poor goverment econmic policy..","Maggie had it right","Lenin had it right",<fill in your own favourite slogan here>. There are very few threads on these boards that seem to debate the real issue, that money has been perverted.

Money is just a tool, a tool for everyone, not just a few. It is intended as a way for us, all of us, to be able to exchange our labours with others for theirs. Originally you would have swapped me a chicken that I had raised with a rabbit that you had raised. I would have fixed your roof, you would have fixed my well. Money is just a symbolic representation of that exchange. It saves me having to have huge pockets to carry all my chickens around in !

That's not what money is now, it's control which was intended to be for the benefit of all has been hijacked by thieves and crooks. It really is a very strange state of affairs when you think about it. The precise reason that a banker is able to pay himself a huge bonus is because his job is to do with controlling the money supply ! Not tricky that. He isn't more creative,more clever or more productive than you or I , he simply has been given the job of looking after the supply of this asset, which belongs not to him but to everyone. The money he is awarding to himself is the promise of labour that he could not possibly earn in a hundred lifetimes ! and that's because it's your labour and my labour that he is taking and our childrens labour.

When I see more threads discussing this I will know we have made progress, till then I can't bear to watch the strings being pulled....

[Guest Noodle]

Yeah, I agree. I think Bloo Loo's idea of cutting public sector pay by 50% of whatever they earn over £25k is the right sort of idea. I'd be absolutely fascinated to see the numbers, might try and dig them up. Also the council/university/quango CEOs on £200k+, give me a break. Nobody doing a PAYE office job that they saw advertised in a newspaper and had to interview for should be making that sort of money. Those guys should be on £80-100k max, and all their underlings adjusted downwards appropriately. Too many rich white people in suits making a killing in both sectors. I don't know how many genuine 'non-jobs' there are, I know the Daily Mail finds a few but it's just not the case that 25% of public sector employees are diversity officers working with the transgendered community. Anyway, find them and cut them. I think Britain should have a great welfare state with good schools and hospitals, and I'm happy to have a government spending 40-45% of GDP as long as it's paying for it honestly through taxes and not borrowing from future generations of taxpayers. But at the moment GDP is collapsing as the private sector falls back to non-bubble levels, and the state has to shrink to match it.

Ragingly good post.

[Injin]

I agree that the DM is guilty of trying to extrapolate a few examples into a societal epedemic.

The solution that I see to this problem is in the approach that Guiliani (sp?) took to crime in NY.

He basically said that by punishing even the smallest crime, you will reduce overall crime figures dramatically.

People laughed at him and complained that his measures were too draconian. That said, his methods worked. Giving tickets to jaywalkers sent a message to everyone else and crime in NY fell by something like 21% during his tenure.

We need a similar bottom up approach to solving our spending problem rather than the top down approach that we seem to be taking.

I am not sure whether we will need a 40% to 45% of GDP spending level by the state to get us to where we want to go if we are ruthless in demanding value for money from the state.

This approach only works if you don't count those in the state towards the crime figures.

i.e. if you see someone getting beaten up, caged and raped for dropping litter and maybe smashing a window as not a crime.

[Winston Wolf]

Its the public sector that will be the new battleground, either the people will rise up OR the government will start to tackle it and the public sector will be the modern day NUM. It is sickening the amount of money they suck out of the pockets of ordinary working class people. We need a rebalancing exercise, it is ridiculous that GP's are getting close to the PM's salary.

Who is goping to step up like Maggie once did and SMASH the public sector?

[Injin]

Its the public sector that will be the new battleground, either the people will rise up OR the government will start to tackle it and the public sector will be the modern day NUM. It is sickening the amount of money they suck out of the pockets of ordinary working class people. We need a rebalancing exercise, it is ridiculous that GP's are getting close to the PM's salary.

Who is goping to step up like Maggie once did and SMASH the public sector?

Maggie didn't smash the public sector.

The state grew under her.

The statists will win, always, followed shortly by everyone losing, always.

Until we give up the mad idea that is the state.

[Ponzi]

Fudge, you're a nasty piece of work, the woman's ill for God's sake.

Thatch doing the pound cutting with scissors speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hLIDolsn64

[Uriah Heap]

Well I am a socialist, or nasty lefty if you prefer.

Margeret Thatcher was an able and talented woman who loved her country. I think she deserves better than to be mocked for the effects of age on her.

But the problem is with the truisms she trotted out like the one above. It would be great if life were that simple but it isn't. The free market left to itself creates bubbles and depressions. The state has to intervene to stop the market wrecking society. Imagine what would happen if, say, house prices were allowed to simply go on rising and rising. Think how disastrous that free market would be.

[LuckyOne]

This approach only works if you don't count those in the state towards the crime figures.

i.e. if you see someone getting beaten up, caged and raped for dropping litter and maybe smashing a window as not a crime.

Injin-land is a very pure and rigourous place.

The real world is a messy, ugly, compromised place.

[LuckyOne]

Well I am a socialist, or nasty lefty if you prefer.

Margeret Thatcher was an able and talented woman who loved her country. I think she deserves better than to be mocked for the effects of age on her.

But the problem is with the truisms she trotted out like the one above. It would be great if life were that simple but it isn't. The free market left to itself creates bubbles and depressions. The state has to intervene to stop the market wrecking society. Imagine what would happen if, say, house prices were allowed to simply go on rising and rising. Think how disastrous that free market would be.

And sometimes the market has to intervene to stop the state from wrecking society.

The state and markets need each other to stop either of them from going too far.

[Injin]

Injin-land is a very pure and rigourous place.

The real world is a messy, ugly, compromised place.

injin land is the real world.

Just ordinary people here, no magic special people who can commit an action identical to crime and it not be a crime.

Join me, it's fun.

[LuckyOne]

injin land is the real world.

Just ordinary people here, no magic special people who can commit an action identical to crime and it not be a crime.

Join me, it's fun.

I agree that it is fun. I am slowly starting to understand little bits of it.

I also think that it represents where we might end up.

I think that the process will be continuous rather than binary though. A series of small steps rather than one giant leap as it were.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

Well I am a socialist, or nasty lefty if you prefer.

Margeret Thatcher was an able and talented woman who loved her country. I think she deserves better than to be mocked for the effects of age on her.

But the problem is with the truisms she trotted out like the one above. It would be great if life were that simple but it isn't. The free market left to itself creates bubbles and depressions. The state has to intervene to stop the market wrecking society. Imagine what would happen if, say, house prices were allowed to simply go on rising and rising. Think how disastrous that free market would be.

i think it would be nigh on impossible for th the free market to create a depression, it takes the state to do that, the free market would have lots of recessions possibly but the malinvestment would get corrected much more quickly . In a free market recessions would be viewed positively or at least happen naaturally as they are healthy and there to cleanse poor investment decisions, in a state, recession is viewed negatively by the political classes (it loses elections) so they will do everything they can to avoid the market working properly, thus creating depressions

Edited February 26, 2010 by Tamara De Lempicka

[MrB]

ignore what they say, watch what they do.

Everything she said was right.

Everything she did was wrong.

What el;se do you expect - the peopel had realised that the state had gotten too big, so the state found someone who talked the right talk so it could carry on as before.

Injin-land has this one spot on.

The rhetoric is magnificent, however the monetrist guff/ expanding credit and expanding state undermines it.

More quality rhetoric here:

Edited February 26, 2010 by MrB

[Uriah Heap]

And sometimes the market has to intervene to stop the state from wrecking society.

The state and markets need each other to stop either of them from going too far.

Yes that is true. I work in R&D, and in my opinion the state has to provide some infrastructure that the private sector wouldn't, but the state would never come up with the kinds of innovations that make life better. You need both a well organised state and plenty of scope for free enterprise.

[ianb78]

In the area I grew up in maggie will always be despised for destroying industry much needed today. Instead of sitting on their arses on benefits working class people used to have meaningful jobs.

It's alright for home counties types on here speaking from their ivory towers but she did a lot of damage.

I predict there will be celebrations in certain parts on her passing

[Uriah Heap]

In the area I grew up in maggie will always be despised for destroying industry much needed today. Instead of sitting on their arses on benefits working class people used to have meaningful jobs.

It's alright for home counties types on here speaking from their ivory towers but she did a lot of damage.

I predict there will be celebrations in certain parts on her passing

She certainly did a lot of damage. I wouldn't be surprised if you are right. It is a tragedy that she achieved the exact opposite of what she thought she would.

[Guest Noodle]

Yes that is true. I work in R&D, and in my opinion the state has to provide some infrastructure that the private sector wouldn't, but the state would never come up with the kinds of innovations that make life better. You need both a well organised state and plenty of scope for free enterprise.

Not true.

This useful household gadget was developed by the Communist Government of the USSR. Unfortunately they launched the prototype into space before it could enter mass production.

[okaycuckoo]

Drivel spoken by Thatcher.

The state has access to an unlimited supply of money.

You so need for this to be true, don't you?

No comment on Maggie's view on human dignity, I see.

[IRULETHEWORLD]

Injin-land has this one spot on.

The rhetoric is magnificent, however the monetrist guff/ expanding credit and expanding state undermines it.

More quality rhetoric here:

classic

freedom incurs responsibility, thats why many men fear it

and there are many on here - you know who you are

[Guest sillybear2]

Drivel spoken by Thatcher.

The state has access to an unlimited supply of money.

The state only has three sources of revenue, taxation, inflation, or stealing from the future, putting aside mercantilism (stealing from other lands). Printing money doesn't create wealth, it's simply a highly regressive form of stealing.

You might as well say the state has an unlimited capacity to boss people about by the barrel of the gun, because that's what it amounts to logically.

[Fudge]

Fudge, you're a nasty piece of work, the woman's ill for God's sake.

Thatch doing the pound cutting with scissors speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hLIDolsn64

I bet she gets the best care money can buy unlike the elderly, disabled and ill that will lose their services under Tory council cuts.

And in contrast look at Arthur Scargill now. Still sharp and politically active and vindicated in a lot of what he said turned out to be true.

[Guest Noodle]

I bet she gets the best care money can buy unlike the elderly, disabled and ill that will lose their services under Tory council cuts.

And in contrast look at Arthur Scargill now. Still sharp and politically active and vindicated in a lot of what he said turned out to be true.