Thatcher to be given a state funeral

[Herr Tubthumper]

im still waiting for your answer on exactly what banking deregulation under thatcher led to irresponsible bank lending ?

Greedy bankers and the banking crisis - Investing | More commentary - MSN Money UK

Read the section titled 'driven by greed'

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Perhaps she should be given a state funeral in Chile?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

throw away comments like his and others cannot be backed up with a decent addition to the debate, its just a throw away remark

My comments are not throw away thank you. I have responded and most of what I say in life has substance and can be backed up with fact.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Fair play , just checking

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This from todays Daily Mirror

And it will COST THE TAXPAYER, £3 MILLION

Margaret Thatcher to have £3million state funeral
First for any PM since Churchill
By Jason Beattie Deputy Political Editor 14/07/2008

Margaret Thatcher will have a £3million state funeral.

The Tory will be the first Prime Minister since Sir Winston Churchill to be given the honour. Plans, backed by the Queen and Gordon Brown, have already been drawn up to mark the occasion at St Paul's cathedral in central London. It has not yet been decided if her body will lie in state at Parliament's Westminster Hall.

The plans will cause fury across the land because her time in office in the 1980s was deeply divisive and she was hounded out by her own party over the hated poll tax. Labour MP, former miner Ronnie Campbell, was stopped from proposing a Commons' motion putting a stop to the lavish send-off.

He said it would split the country. Thatcher, 82, closed mines, shipyards and steelworks in Labour's heartlands and her "cruel and divisive reign" should not be commemorated.

Advertisement

and i for one will be quite happy to :dance: on her grave

It will be an utter f***ing shambles and a riot. I cant wait.

 

[Simster]

For heavens sake that is not what I said as well you know. I feel no need to change that comment as its the truth. Not all people on low wages should be proped up by the state. Being self employed and a tough year I do not expect Brown to top up my income as the mortgage market is 65% down this year I will tough it out or get a 2nd job.

This is what you said:

My point and I know its a bit radical is that if someone earns a low wage, maybe, just maybe they have to take responsilibity for why that is the case, maybe they did not work at school, maybe they pissed about in their exams, maybe they are lazy, maybe they are poor workers, maybe they couldn't be bothered with dedicating to a career and spending weeks and months passing professional exams, maybe they deserve a low wage

Or maybe it's because they didn't get the start in life to persue further education, maybe they fell into an industry that simply doesn't pay well, maybe they work hard but simply lack the academic ability to do something better paid, maybe they are not motivated by serious money but do a vital job in the economy.

The problem is that you've just picked a subset of the low paid sector to rally against. Fine, but like a typical ignorant Thatcherite, you haven't done the same about the section of the super rich who do nothing but avoid paying tax and waste their lives contributing nothing to society.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Fair play , just checking

I actually enjoy a bit of debate and am reasonably careful and do not shot-from-the-hip.

 

[User removed 4]

Greedy bankers and the banking crisisÂ*-Â*Investing | More commentary - MSN Money UK

Read the section titled 'driven by greed'

like i said EXACTLY what deregulation ?

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Greedy bankers and the banking crisisÂ*-Â*Investing | More commentary - MSN Money UK

Read the section titled 'driven by greed'

A decent report that HT , could not disagree with much if any of it

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

This is what you said:

***Or maybe it's because they didn't get the start in life to persue further education, maybe they fell into an industry that simply doesn't pay well, maybe they work hard but simply lack the academic ability to do something better paid, maybe they are not motivated by serious money but do a vital job in the economy.***

The problem is that you've just picked a subset of the low paid sector to rally against. Fine, but like a typical ignorant Thatcherite, you haven't done the same about the section of the super rich who do nothing but avoid paying tax and waste their lives contributing nothing to society.

but again you are mis quoted what I said, read what I said and if the facts of what I said are true my end conclusion is true and I stick by it

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

This is what you said:

Or maybe it's because they didn't get the start in life to persue further education, maybe they fell into an industry that simply doesn't pay well, maybe they work hard but simply lack the academic ability to do something better paid, maybe they are not motivated by serious money but do a vital job in the economy.

The problem is that you've just picked a subset of the low paid sector to rally against. Fine, but like a typical ignorant Thatcherite, you haven't done the same about the section of the super rich who do nothing but avoid paying tax and waste their lives contributing nothing to society.

I am not a Thatcherite at all. I voted for option 2. The super rich are as well off or better off under Labour than the Tories, ask Alan Sugar. Its the band between the poor and the rich/super rich that are turned over.

 

[Les Biehn]

This is what you said:

Or maybe it's because they didn't get the start in life to persue further education, maybe they fell into an industry that simply doesn't pay well, maybe they work hard but simply lack the academic ability to do something better paid, maybe they are not motivated by serious money but do a vital job in the economy.

The problem is that you've just picked a subset of the low paid sector to rally against. Fine, but like a typical ignorant Thatcherite, you haven't done the same about the section of the super rich who do nothing but avoid paying tax and waste their lives contributing nothing to society.

I earn a fairly low wage, have 2 jobs (1 full time and 1 part time) and a masters degree. This is because the industry I want to get into is very competative and I spend a lot of money either supporting myself through work placements or getting films made.

So while US's assumptions on apply to me they are wrong.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Who asked you anyway

 

[Simster]

I earn a fairly low wage, have 2 jobs (1 full time and 1 part time) and a masters degree. This is because the industry I want to get into is very competative and I spend a lot of money either supporting myself through work placements or getting films made.

So while US's assumptions on apply to me they are wrong.

And I suspect the majority of low wage earners are more like you that the scrounging, idle, thoughtless sector that Gareth seems to want to paint you all as to prove his point.

I am not a Thatcherite at all. I voted for option 2. The super rich are as well off or better off under Labour than the Tories, ask Alan Sugar. Its the band between the poor and the rich/super rich that are turned over.

The powder puff policies of the second half of the Labour government have been a dreadful disappointment - they took us into war where we had no business (turning us into US puppets), they've done nothing to address the widening gap between the rich and poor, they've treated the police appallingly (wrt their salaries) and people have lost confidence in Brown at a time when strong leadership is required in order to stave off recession.

But the difference is that at least there aren't clowns on here calling Blair or Brown "the best PM ever" or similar guff.

 

[User removed 4]

I earn a fairly low wage, have 2 jobs (1 full time and 1 part time) and a masters degree. This is because the industry I want to get into is very competative and I spend a lot of money either supporting myself through work placements or getting films made.

So while US's assumptions on apply to me they are wrong.

but surely thats your choice ? as you said you have a masters degree, use it to gain better paid employment or lump it , to be simplistic !

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I earn a fairly low wage, have 2 jobs (1 full time and 1 part time) and a masters degree. This is because the industry I want to get into is very competative and I spend a lot of money either supporting myself through work placements or getting films made.

So while US's assumptions on apply to me they are wrong.

But when you hit the jackpot Les it would have been worthwhile.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

The powder puff policies of the second half of the Labour government have been a dreadful disappointment - they took us into war where we had no business (turning us into US puppets), they've done nothing to address the widening gap between the rich and poor, they've treated the police appallingly (wrt their salaries) and people have lost confidence in Brown at a time when strong leadership is required in order to stave off recession.

But the difference is that at least there aren't clowns on here calling Blair or Brown "the best PM ever" or similar guff.

Fair enough, my best PM ever would be Churchill

 

[London Pompous]

A decent report that HT , could not disagree with much if any of it

Yet you blame the Northern Rock fiasco on Labour, whilst the conclusion of the report says

The fiasco has dented public confidence in the financial industry - and it's all too easy for the banks to blame the government, the regulator or the American housing market.

Indeed they seem determined to blame anything - anything, that is, except their own greed.

So, on reflection, is the Northern Rock fiasco the fault of the bankers greed or New Labour? You appear to contradict yourself.

 

[Caveman]

"Margaret Thatcher to have £3million state funeral First for any PM since Churchill"

That says it all. Who decides these things? Obviously not the public!

 

[User removed 4]

Yet you blame the Northern Rock fiasco on Labour, whilst the conclusion of the report says

The fiasco has dented public confidence in the financial industry - and it's all too easy for the banks to blame the government, the regulator or the American housing market.

Indeed they seem determined to blame anything - anything, that is, except their own greed.

So, on reflection, is the Northern Rock fiasco the fault of the bankers greed or New Labour? You appear to contradict yourself.

the fiasco is the fault of bankers greed, the response to it was poor.