Thatcher has died

I hear what you are saying, Eloethan, but presumably, if they could afford the £4M house, they would have been paying higher taxes anyway.

I was actually thinking of like for like. I think the principal was a good one but, hope there would have to have been a way of ensuring a fair share being paid.

In those days, remember, the high earners paid a much higher percentage of income tax and the tax on unearned income was very high too.

I am pleased that I do not have to make those decisions but, I hope that if I did and was convinced that those decisions were best for the country, that I would have Mrs T's courage to stick to my guns

POGS there are 400 posts on this topic, and I must say its quite a task to keep track of everything everyone has said (on this thread and on others) but if you do have the time to scroll back, you will see that the views of those of us who do not feel that Mrs T and her supporters are candidates for canonisation have a perfectly sceptical and nuanced view of events prior to 1979. We do not extoll everything that every union did. We do not assert that Scargill and others were correct in their behaviour. We do not, even, blame Mrs T for the developments of Western Capitalism in Europe, which, by and large, is pretty much the same wherever you look. But we do say that Mrs Thatcher was the epitome and embodiment of a particular manifestation of selfish individualism which took little account of the poor and dispossessed and substituted one kind of unelected hegemony for another - the financial institutions who equally hold the country to ransom and against whom there are no sanctions.

Good post, MiceElf! Puts things in perspective.

Micelf

Are you answering my post at 15.12 or answering my 'respectful' request to Eloethan. I have no issue with what you say just trying to understand why you posted to me by name. Albeit very nice.

The last one, I think! Was to Eloethan? 400 posts, and four threads, I'm just a little confused. I think we need a techy gransnetter to produce a spreadsheet so we can backtrack and reference everything each one of us has said.

But, having said that, without going back and doing a textual analysis of everything Eloethan has said, I sort of think that she and I are in general agreement.

I'm sure she'll put me right if that's not the case.

Mice

OK Thanks.

How does being able to paraphrase St Francis mean that she followed Christian values? I can quote from the Bible, the Qur’an, the Torah and the Guru Granth Sahib. Does that make me a Christian Islamic Jewish Sikh?

She used the words of a good man as a sound bite. Cynical photo/sound opportunity.

POGS I agree with you that the relationship between employers/government/trades unions was becoming increasingly problematic during the 60's and 70's.

Anyone who was an adult in the 70's will recall the various strikes and the power cuts - I was a working mum and I remember sitting in the office trying to work by the light of lamps, so I experienced those things too.

I think that historically the UK has had a bad record of worker/employer relationships. Where companies in Japan and Germany, for instance, encourage worker representation and a less rigid division between top management and workers, in this country we had a very hierarchical structure, as exemplified by larger companies having restaurants for the "bosses" and canteens for the "workers". It's hardly surprising that industrial relations were tainted by this sort of attitude.

I believe that Mrs T would have pursued her "free market" policies even if there had been no industrial strife - but people like Arthur Scargill actually played into her hands. She was a staunch believer in Milton Friedman's economic philosophy that the market can be left to its own devices and that government should neither own key industries nor have any regulatory function.

On being elected, Mrs T: lowered direct taxes and increased indirect taxes. increased the interest rates and reduced expenditure on social services and education. Her approval rating fell to 23% in December 1980 and there were riots in 1981. By 1982 over 3 million people were unemployed and manufacturing output had decreased by 30% since 1975. The Falklands war in 1982 restored her popularity.

At the same time, North Sea Oil revenue which was at its highest level between 1980 and 1987 was used to balance the economy. From around the 1990's that revenue fell rapidly.

Now that unions have nowhere near as much power as in the past, we we find that there is a huge increase in zero hours contracts, workers being paid minimum or very low wages that need to be made up to more realistic levels by taxpayer benefits, more and more workers being denied sick pay, etc. Meanwhile, we are almost entirely dependent on the financial and service sector, and now the financial sector (which holds no allegiance to any country) holds the country to ransom - threatening to move elsewhere if the government "oversteps the mark" in trying to regulate them.

What are 'Christian values', as opposed to atheist values, for example?

Tweedle24 You did say an "elderly couple". They would only be liable for income tax on their pensions, which we all have to pay if we receive over the limit set.

And if it's a working individual, again, everybody has to pay income tax over a certain limit. Presumably an individual that owns a £4 million house would have an income relative to that. I believe the higher income tax rate at that time was 40%.

...I was trying to be sarcastic ....

I remember the power cuts!
Have you ever tried to diagnose a rash by taper light?

Galen, No but I remember difficult calvings by torchlight (you held the torch between your teeth), and being up all night every night with a three month old baby seriously ill with whooping cough and the stewed flasks of tea to keep our spirits up.

Tegan, I was thinking of Ausgrandma's comment that we live in a Christian country - I don't know what that means.

Eloethan

Thank you very much.

I think we have had a respectable discussion and I am understanding your points. Maybe when 'the heat' is taken out of our posts we see another posters perspectives, not that we have to agree but certainly understand and respect a little more of a posters mind set. Well I hope I am right in that view,

Sorry I was late in replying, had a fun night out.

Eloethan but that is what I thought! I find it really hard to believe that anyone working in HR would not know their rights. I don't know how many times I need to repeat that. Imo it is incredible that she wouldn't.

Do you have an opinion on what bluebell said to me? Do you think that is acceptable?

I found the article quite interesting but as it is 2 years old it would be good to see something relevant to today. Can you find anything?

Greatna perhaps you can check on current legislation as I think that if you are more or less permanently working for the same employer you are not allowed to be self-employed. If that is not the case I am sure you are in an ideal position to advise him on the tax advantages of forming hiw own company.

The information in The Guardian article is correct, nothing has changed.

Movedalot I feel that your comments are unacceptable as they come very close to saying that that the information given by another member of this forum is untrue. If someone shares something experienced by a family member, I think it is arrogant to imply that they are either not truthful or ignorant.

Galen examining a rash by taper doesn't every Doctor carry a torch for checking pupil reaction ?

Ruth well said.

Oh its going to be one of those days isnt it where have I just read a post from Ruth think I will just go back to bed, after I have found the post.

Its on page 3 Wed 10-Apr-13 09:31:14 the laptop has taken a bad turn or maybe its the user, still agree with ruths post!

movedalot You mean WTF? If you find that offensive, then that is how you feel. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if someone responded to me in such a way if I had just implied that their daughter wasn't very bright.

As to the issue that bluebell was talking about - her daughter being worried about possible redundancy - it's one thing having a basic knowledge about the law and your rights, etc., but it's quite another asserting those rights without the benefit of legal representation. Without such representation (which can be very expensive), it would be just you against possibly a large organisation - which would most certainly have access to a solicitor specialising in employment law.

If you are interested in researching the matter further, I'm sure there must be other articles relating to pregnancy and redundancy on the internet. As the article I posted is only two years old, I doubt that the sorts of examples and figures quoted have changed much. In fact, with the introduction of Employment Tribunal charges for applicants, it is even less likely that women will pursue claims relating to redundancy during pregnancy.

I'm glad Buck palace are complaining about the regal nature of MT's funeral. As I said before, will Tony B, John Major et al get a "state" funeral? - I doubt it; and quite right too.

[Harri] yes! But batteries were in short supply as well. We were lucky as there was a church supplies place opposite and we managed to scrounge tapers and candles from them. I was actually using florists tapers at the time.
Candles were like gold dust and you saved your pencil torches for emergency. They wouldn't have lasted the 2 1/2 hours of an evening surgery.