Marmora Man

If it was deregularised, privatised and downsized in the 80s the company must have been in the public sector. Very few such company's were making real profits from their revenues - many more were strangled by unionism that prevented effective management and change to enable them to make real profits. Their products were uncompetitive in the world market. There were many "companies" in the public sector that were being subsidised by the public purse as an alternative to recognising that they had no real commercial future in their existing form. The fact that a major downsizing occurred in the company where your father worked would indicate that there was fat in the system. Businesses do not cut their own throats - they maximise profits, it's the nature of the beast. They retain good, willing and supportive staff, they cut activities and staff that do not, in some fashion, contribute to the bottom line. I'm not suggesting your father deserved to be made redundant but to blame his redundancy on Lady Thatcher is illogical. She saw the decline in Britain, enacted policies that halted and then reversed the decline. The fact that much Britain's industrial base was in the North, was nationalised and had had little real investment since the 30s was not her fault - some blame can be laid at the door of the company owners in the 30s that failed to invest in their businesses, but from 1945 it was successive governments that declined to invest effectively - resulting in high cost / low quality products, the fallout had to happen at some stage. In 1979 the government was operating airlines, coalmines, steelmaking works, telecomms, car manufacturing, railways, shipbuilding; almost all, if not all, at a loss. Today they operate none of these enterprises and yet our taxes are as high as they were in the 70s. If they were all still under government control either taxes would have be significantly higher for everyone, or we would have to forego other government services that we value - the NHS, Social Services, Police, Defence - and in all likelihood both would apply. High taxes, lousy public services.

This subject was discussed thoroughly about two years ago when a similarly I'll natured comment was made about Lady Thatcher during an earlier illness. I do not intend to re run the same arguments more than once. Signing off.

I don't understand this vilification of Lady Thatcher. She resigned almost 21 years ago - which means that, unless you were an unusually political aware teenager, you have to 45+ to have any real memory of her time as Prime Minister. Yet some strange myth and folk memory has grown around her time as PM - carefully nurtured by young socialists and uninformed lefties such as the chap photographed next to Ed Milliband recently. You have to be older still to recall the 60s & 70s - a time when Bob Crow's approach to industrial relations would have been seen by his union colleagues as strangely wimpish. A time when the Cold War was really cold with geriatric Soviet leaders wanting to challenge the West. A time when client wars on behalf of East and West were routine. A time when Britain's industrial reputation was low - when Wilson devalued the ? and Healey invited the IMF to sort out Britain's finances. Britain was on its way to becoming an unregarded poor man of Europe - viewed much as look at Greece and Portugal today. By robust leadership Margaret Thatcher and the Conservative administration '79 - '89 turned that situation around. Like all political administrations it ran out of steam toward the end but the changes made benefit us still.

Apparently it's no longer politically correct to direct a joke at any racial or ethnic minority so try this one: An Englishman, a Scotsman, an Irishman, a Welshman, a Latvian, a Turk, an Aussie, a German, a Yank, an Egyptian, a Japanese, a Mexican, a Spaniard, a Russian, a Pole, a Lithuanian, a Swede, a Finn, an Israeli, a Romanian, a Bulgarian, a Serb, a Swiss, a Greek, a Singaporean, an Italian, a Norwegian and an African went to a night club. The bouncer said: "Sorry, I can?t let you in without a Thai"

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I read that her daughter has to remind her Mum > that Denis has died. That must be sad. I had to > remind my own Mum last week that her brother died > years ago, and she cried so much. It's > heartbreaking. > > But this is THATCHER, so - you know - hope it > HURTS, BITCH! PR - you disappoint me. Such a statement does not become a humanitarian.

Huguenot wrote > I'm not familiar with Tiger Tops, but then I'm not stuck in the 50s > Tiger tops - ice cold Tiger Beer poured to within an inch of an ice cold glass and topped off with an inch of ice cold lemonade. Usually drunk immediately on arrival at the Singapore Officer's mess poolside after a hard day's work onboard ship -often used to repay minor debts & favours eg: I'll do your duty watch, I'll supervise the store ship day, I'll let you copy my spherical trig astro navigation workings. Cooling, long with just a touch of sweetness. I'm now stuck in my 50s, but in the early 70s Singapore was a fun place for a ship visit, en route Australia.

Alec John Moore Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MM, there's many a slip twixt cup and lip, to > refer to Bill the Quill. If Scotland became > independent again it wouldn't be only "independent > of England" but but would as you say split the > union. Seeing things from a perpetually anglo > centric perspective is the thing that pisses the > Scots off on a regular basis. However, most > intelligent Scots can overlook that innate > arrogance and will sensibly agree with you that > political and economic independence would be a > pointless waste of effort. AJM - you're quite right - a slip of grammar and drafting. Unintentional - I did and do mean that a break up of the Union will be a bad thing for the Union and its constituent parts. As I said - I'm a fan of all things Scottish - my 15 years there represent almost 50% of my adult life and the whisky I've consumed exceeds, by a large margin, my own body weight. Scotland is part of the family and I'd hate see friendly and good natured relations, with occasional spats, between relatives descend into total and absolute separation. I believe, and hope, the majority of Scots would not favour full independence. However, I do think Alex Salmond now has to call the referendum - deciding who will be eligible to vote will be an interesting problem. Many many ex pat Scots of my acquaintance would probably vote in favour of independence on an emotional basis, their view of Scotland being clouded by a misty remembrance of the past - but they would not return to live in Scotland, independent or not. I'd call that the Connery Conundrum. Additionally, in the event of independence the contractual disputes about who owns what, whether it be oil in the North Sea, military bases, equipment and personnel, NHS hospitals, roads, rail and other infrastructure would just be mind boggling.

A quick breakdown. In 1997 Labour won the general election with 43% of the popular vote on a turnout of 71.4% = 30% of the country. In 2001 Labour won the general election with 40% of the popular vote on a turnout of 59.4% = 23.7% of the country. In 2005 Labour won the general election with 35% of the popular vote on a turnout of 61.4% = 21.5% of the country. In 2010 Conservatives polled 36% on a turnout of 65% = 23.5% of the country. In 2011 "NO to AV" won the referendum with 74% on a turnout of 42% = 31% of the country. This would indicate a greater validity for the NO to AV than for any of the recent four general elections.

Priggish - the Conservatives, come on! Today's Conservatism grew out of a recognition that individualism, personal rights and freedoms are more important than "Big" government. The roots of the Labour party and socialism grew out of Methodism and Trades Unionism - neither remarkable for tolerating dissent. You get a much better red top scandal "sex & sin" from Conservative politicians than from Labour. However, we clearly agree on one area - current Gov't cuts are not cuts just a slowing down in the rate of Gov't spending. It's a lie perpetuated by all current politicians of all creeds. I personally believe the correction in Gov't spending is both necessary and proper ( note the careful avoidance of the word "right" - lest you fall for more textual analysis)

58% did not vote - turnout across the country was 42%, higher I believe than for recent General Elections.

Hugenot, Your ability to create a three volume interpretation of my views, intentions and general philosophy based on a textual analysis of 55 words is impressive but the conclusions you draw are incorrect. My friends and colleagues would not recognise me from your e-fit description. Should you ever return from Singapore we should meet for a beer. It's now possible to buy Tiger Tops - which, in my time, was a universal currency for favours in Singapore - so I'll stand you the first round of TTs.

Seems to me that, for ED, the result goes to prove the old 80/20 rule. In most organisations / businesses / processes / wisdom 80% of the value resides in 20% of the employees, stock room, customers, population etc, etc. I am proud to have been part of EDs sensible 20% that was not seduced by the very poor arguments presented in favour of AV.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Marmora Man Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > YES - the right result > > I know. A big shame it didn't happen! You spottedvmy irony!

YES - the right result

James how exactly does locking the gate achieve these things? 1. Grown ups deciding to walk in the park in the dark can make their own minds up - they don't need the Lib Dems or others to make choices for them. 2. Protecting the huge investment - when anyone reasonably nimble can leap over / squeeze through the existing railings. How does a padlock on a 4 foot gate do this? 3. "Believed" to reduce vandalism - where is your control, how are you measuring this? Give us all access 24/7 to the park and cut out the cost (in time if not money) of locking and unlocking 7 (?) gates dawn and dusk every day. Baa humbug - idiotic thinking on the council's part.

As an Englishman that spent the best part of 15 years living & working in Scotland and am an avid consumer of its whisky, I love Scotland's magnificent countryside, coastline, mountains and seas, I feel completely at home in Glasgow - a fine and elegant city where I first fell in love I am a huge fan and admirer of everything north of the border. However I would oppose utterly, any plan to make Scotland independent of England. To break up a successful nation into smaller parts. The sum is, in this case, far greater than the sum of its parts. Cultural diversity and independence of thought - great. Political and economic independence would be to the detriment of everyone in UK.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think a Submarine Movie's even started > until you've spotted the first Polo Neck or John Mills being either very scared or very brave.

I see no evidence in her posts that misscarmelite is a Tory. Further - as I am a member of the Conservative Party I rather resent the implication that all Tories are liars. I know you've become quite het up over the AV campaign but the "mistruths" and "economical with the truths" have been pretty evenly split between the YES and NO campaigns - and while the NO campaign is supported strongly by many conservatives it does not comprise just conservatives. You say you are not a football type political supporter - with no consistent voter record. A little objectivity when discussing others might be in order.

I voted NO - perhaps the only one on this thread to do so. Look forward to FPTP being the electoral system for next few elections. However, as I have said - I can be persuaded that the electoral system requires change - but I am not / was not persuaded that voting for AV would be a positive change for the better. Wider debate of wider options is required.

There's more fun in the Lounge & Drawing Room - tho' even there life is less exciting and more predictable than afore.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MM - I fully agree that the Yes camp's approach to > the argument has been, frankly, terrible. On the > other hand, whilst the Yes camp has been guilty of > some cringe-worthy hyperbole, at least they > haven't gone for the bare-faced lies approach of > the No camp. Sadly, the No camp's approach has > been depressingly effective. > > Which just goes to show that, while the electorate > claims they want politicians to stop lying to > them, they still believe those lies and vote > accordingly. So, who can blame the politicians? > They will just keep on lying as it is so > effective. > > You have, at last, raised a point that could > persuade me that a different form of voting for > Parliament might be a good idea. You have yet to > get anyway near convincing me that AV is that > different form. > > Do you agree that if No win on Thursday then any > electoral reform will be off the agenda for many > years to come? And whilst a Yes is no guarantee > of further reform, it will at least keep the topic > on the table? I am not prepared to vote for a defective electoral system in order to, theoretically, keep the topic of electoral reform alive. That is frankly a very weak argument for voting yes to AV. As I said I can see that a rational case can be made for electoral reform - it is up to those that want such reform to continue to press for it - not to accept the "miserable little compromise" that is AV, as a possible step on the way. I could argue very persuasively that if we get to AV electoral reform will stall there and go no further.

Alan Dale Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is it possible with AV to have the winner that is > no one's first choice? NO - to be considered the candidate must have polled at least 1 vote more than the candidate with the least votes in order to take part in what is now being termed a "run off" with the 2nd pref votes of the least preferred candidate being apportioned to the remaining candidates.

Loz, You have, at last, raised a point that could persuade me that a different form of voting for Parliament might be a good idea. You have yet to get anyway near convincing me that AV is that different form. Had the Yes to AV concentrated upon reasons why the current system needs to be changed rather than claiming vague and unsubstantiated benefits for AV such as - "fairer", "more democratic", "holds MPs to account", "reduces MPs fiddling expenses", "progressive", "keeps the Tories out" and last but not least the illogical and frankly hilarious "would have prevented slavery" then perhaps more rational people might have listened and accorded the YES team some support.

The No vote will win on Thursday because a majority of people will intinctively prefer FPTP as a fairer and simpler, somehow more natural system, to a contrived mathematically suspect process that some experts have devised to suit their own ends. FPTP appeals to the heart - AV appeals to mechanistic meddlers.

westdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If, for sake of argument, 10,000 people vote as > follows: > 4,100 vote Party A as their first preference, with > 800 voting Party B and 3,300 voting Party C as > their second preference > 3,000 vote Party B as their first preference, with > 1,500 voting Party A and 1,500 voting Party C as > their second preference > 2,900 vote Party C as their first preference, with > 800 voting Party A and 2,100 voting Party B as > their second preference > > Have I understood this correctly? > Party A has the most first preference votes > Party C is the party that most would be prefer, if > their first choice was eliminated. > > Under FPTP, Party A is the winner, with 41% of > votes cast. > Under AV, Party B is the winner, with 51% of votes > cast (after Party C is eliminated and its votes > distributed). West Dulwich - try my maths on the Lounge thread - I don't think it quite answers your query but it confuses me!