Boris Johnson has accused Britons of being lazy and having themselves to blame for losing out on jobs to more hard-working foreigners.

The London mayor suggested as few as one in ten jobs were now being filled by Brits, because many are too illiterate or unwilling to match the effort shown by immigrants.

Mr Johnson, who has previously suggested an immigration amnesty, praised newcomers – especially those from eastern Europe – for having a ‘different work ethic’.

And he claimed one in four Brits leave primary school still unable to read, write or do basic maths.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph, he told of a conversation with a recruitment consultant for London restaurants who said just one in ten of the people she employed were British.

Mr Johnson said: ‘We all know that it isn’t enough to blame the immigrants.

‘For starters, we can’t kick people out when they are legally entitled to be here under EU rules.

‘Second, and much more important, it is economically illiterate to blame eastern Europeans for getting up early and working hard and being polite and helpful and therefore enabling the London catering trade to flourish.’

He blamed the last Labour government for failings in the education system, leaving many school-leavers illiterate and innumerate.

He added: ‘No wonder they will lose out, in the jobs market, to industrious people from eastern Europe who can take down a telephone message correctly.’

Unemployment in Britain rose by 7,000 to 2.52million between November and January, according to the most recent official figures – an overall rate of 7.8 per cent.

The youth unemployment rate is 21.2 per cent, with some 993,000 people aged between 16 and 24 now out of work.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/08/boris-johnson-blames-lazy-brits-for-losing-out-on-jobs-to-hard-working-immigrants-3587183/


But guess what, these folks will blame the government for not having work. They went on riot in 2011 destroying businesses and looting.

So y'all are just encountering cap's white hate?

Same ish different day. #DasAll

debosky: So y'all are just encountering cap's white hate?

Same ish different day. #DasAll

Of course not; I just thought he might have been able to articulate better economic and social policies for the British economy in 1979 since he loathes Thatcher's economic policies so much.

Katsumoto: Boris Johnson has accused Britons of being lazy and having themselves to blame for losing out on jobs to more hard-working foreigners.

The London mayor suggested as few as one in ten jobs were now being filled by Brits, because many are too illiterate or unwilling to match the effort shown by immigrants.

Mr Johnson, who has previously suggested an immigration amnesty, praised newcomers – especially those from eastern Europe – for having a ‘different work ethic’.

And he claimed one in four Brits leave primary school still unable to read, write or do basic maths.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph, he told of a conversation with a recruitment consultant for London restaurants who said just one in ten of the people she employed were British.

Mr Johnson said: ‘We all know that it isn’t enough to blame the immigrants.

‘For starters, we can’t kick people out when they are legally entitled to be here under EU rules.

‘Second, and much more important, it is economically illiterate to blame eastern Europeans for getting up early and working hard and being polite and helpful and therefore enabling the London catering trade to flourish.’

He blamed the last Labour government for failings in the education system, leaving many school-leavers illiterate and innumerate.

He added: ‘No wonder they will lose out, in the jobs market, to industrious people from eastern Europe who can take down a telephone message correctly.’

Unemployment in Britain rose by 7,000 to 2.52million between November and January, according to the most recent official figures – an overall rate of 7.8 per cent.

The youth unemployment rate is 21.2 per cent, with some 993,000 people aged between 16 and 24 now out of work.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/08/boris-johnson-blames-lazy-brits-for-losing-out-on-jobs-to-hard-working-immigrants-3587183/


But guess what, these folks will blame the government for not having work. They went on riot in 2011 destroying businesses and looting.

The jobs that Boris Johnson are referring to are low paid unskilled jobs that most british people don't want - these are jobs that you can not feed yourself let alone a family on and the only people who take on these kind of jobs are immmigrants like you and the eastern europeans who are escaping much harsher conditions in their countries of origin - this has nothing to do with being hard working and everything to do with desperation.

I can assure you that if many immigrants could get better paying jobs they wouldnt touch any of those jobs with a ten foot barge pole.

How often do you see black immigrants in highly sought after jobs that whites are willing to do?

The thing you dont understand about the tories is that their economic policies are designed to keep poor people trapped in a vicious cycle of low wages with no hope of social mobility, the tories want you to work for minimum wage while they earn millions of pounds, claim millions in expenses for homes they dont live in and hide their wealth in off shore tax havens - they look down on anyone who is not in the same social class as themselves - Boris Johnson, David Cam M..oron, George Osbourne are all millionaires who attended eton and Oxford they do not relate to nor understand how ordinary people live and they dont want to either.

Katsumoto:

Of course not; I just thought he might have been able to articulate better economic and social policies for the British economy in 1979 since he loathes Thatcher's economic policies so much.

His problem is quite simple. While he strongly holds his opinion as he is permitted to do, he can't accept you hold a different, but equally valid opinion. Any such opinion MUST be because you are a white worshipper who doesn't understand how much the whites hate you. Oh, and you're also poorly educated too.

debosky:

His problem is quite simple. While he strongly holds his opinion as he is permitted to do, he can't accept you hold a different, but equally valid opinion. Any such opinion MUST be because you are a white worshipper who doesn't understand how much the whites hate you. Oh, and you're also poorly educated too.

Yes, I am a poor immigrant who is poorly educated, and working on minimum wage but I love Whitey because they didn't send me back at the border with my fake papers.

cap28:

The jobs that Boris Johnson are referring to are low paid unskilled jobs that most british people don't want - these are jobs that you can not feed yourself let alone a family on and the only people who take on these kind of jobs are immmigrants like you and the eastern europeans who are escaping much harsher conditions in their countries of origin - this has nothing to do with laziness and everything to do with desperation.

I can assure you that if many immigrants could get better paying jobs they wouldnt touch any of those jobs with a ten foot barge pole.

How often do you see black immigrants in highly sought after jobs that whites are willing to do?

The thing you dont understand about the tories is that their economic policies are designed to keep poor people trapped in a vicious cycle of low wages with no hope of social mobility, the tories want you to work for minimum wage while they earn millions of pounds, claim millions in expenses for homes they dont live in and hide their wealth in off shore tax havens - they look down on anyone who is not in the same social class as themselves - Boris Johnson, David Cam M..oron, George Osbourne are all millionaires who attended eton and Oxford they do not relate to nor understand how ordinary people live and they dont want to either.

Are most people born with promised jobs from Heaven? Nigerians work in restaurants based in Nigeria; Brazilians work in restaurants in Brazil; Americans work in Restaurants in the US but the average Brit is too big to work in a British restaurant even when he/she has literacy problems. Hasn’t this always been the problem with the UK?

Young black boys don’t want to go to school but they are all trying out at football clubs. The gals go to nightclubs hoping to snag football players. When they do go to school, then go to study media courses. There are universities offering David Beckham courses. But when they graduate, they expect government to provide them the jobs of their dreams and are too good to work in restaurants.

If immigrants who don’t receive weekly giro, don’t live in council housing and can live on minimum wage, why not brits who receive weekly giro, live rent free/cheap?

If minimum wage jobs are not created for brits, whom then are they created for? Do you even understand the concept of demand and supply? How many media / marketing jobs are there. If a majority of brits want to do easy courses in college, surely its common sense that all can’t be employed in their preferred industry?

I don’t know in what circles you socialize but I know Nigerian immigrants have taken hold of IT, Medical, Accounting industries. Indian immigrants control retail, Medical, IT industries. The Polish have taken hold of the building industry? Are these low paying jobs as well? Whilst I agree that racism places a glass ceiling in most industries, surely those who work hard still do well.

This cap dude's passion is often clouded with falsehood. How is the US in recession? Abi dem don redefine recession ni?

For all of 2012, the economy grew 2.2% after a 1.8% increase in 2011 and a 2.4% advance in 2010

PS: I have quoted The Guardian, not right-wing mouthpieces.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/mar/28/us-economy-grows-faster-rate

debosky: This cap dude's passion is often clouded with falsehood. How is the US in recession? Abi dem don redefine recession ni?



PS: I have quoted The Guardian, not right-wing mouthpieces.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/mar/28/us-economy-grows-faster-rate

If there is no falsehood, there can't be conspiracy theories. But the falsehood sometimes borders on ignorance. If one is knowledgeable, then one wouldn't fall for the lies on www.iamcuckoo.com. dazall

Oh and by the way, in case anyone was interested, I'm not really a fan of Thatcher either, except of her doggedness, focus and clarity of vision.

She economically ruined large portions of the UK and enriched others. Whether alternative policies would have done more harm/good than hers is an academic debate - we don't know.

I disagree with the view that black folk today cannot benefit from any of her policies. I agree that they may not have been aimed at blacks/minorities in the first instance, but that doesn't mean you can't take advantage of them.

In the end, I don't see the point of excessive focus on what she did since she left over 20 years ago. If others have either been unable/unwilling to change things, then they have to blame themselves.

Katsumoto:

The same leftwing lazy rhetoric.

I asked you before and I will ask you again. What policies would you have implemented in 1979 considering the following

1. A decline in the UK mining industry

2. High inflation

3. High debt (the labour government had borrowed from the IMF)

4. High taxes from Labour (98% marginal rate)


The problem with people like you is that you expect the government to do everything for you.

Thatcher dealt with a devastating economic conditions with skill and wisdom.

She understood that the mining industry was dying and reformed trade unions so much that the unions could not hold the country hostage. Did the unions not bring down the Labour government of Callaghan in 1979?

Many home owners in the UK owe owning their homes to Thatcher. What was the rate of home ownership before Thatcher? Wasn't it only rich people who owned their homes? With Thatcher, individuals could also own shares. 11 MILLION people bought shares after privatization. That is still the level of share ownership in the UK today. The only people that didn't benefit were those who expected the government to do everything for them. Many clever people became millionaires in the 80S BECAUSE she reformed the markets.

^^^^
I took a different view from Mr Katsumoto earlier because of the double standards of prominent 1st world neoclassical economists & politicians on one key issue. That particular issue (public bailouts of private enterprise) aside, I agree broadly with SOME of his ideas. More to the point, I think his challenge to Mrs. Thatcher's opponents on this thread IS an appropriate (though tough) one. Indeed, what would any of us here (if we were in Thatcher's shoes) have done differently (with the added benefit of 20/20 hindsight vision?)

Surely we can rise to the challenge!!

VolvoS60:
Surely we can rise to the challenge!!

15 pages and no one has done so - except shymexx with his 'increase tax' idea, which doesn't sound credible.

I have heard other arguments though - such as using the increasing North Sea revenues at the time to create new industries to replace those that were being lost, instead of using those revenues to reduce taxes. How exactly this would have worked and what these 'new' industries are is unclear to me.

This is a case of two extreme ideologies(Afrocentricism and Eurocentricism) going at it... However, I still believe Kats' argument is flawed...

Ok, let's forget about the African immigrants and other minorities and debate the topic about what's right for the Brits who own their country and have nowhere to go apart from the UK...

It's their country and they're entitled to enjoying all the goodies that comes with the territory.... Who honestly cares about Thatcher being better than what's attainable on the African continent and how utterly corrupt the continent is... Also, when did Africa become the yardstick to judge anything good?? Anyway, the average Brit thinks Africa is the dark continent and a basket case - and the Brits' struggle is different from that of Africa...

Questions:
- Were the policies effected by Lady Thatcher to destroy the livelihood of peasant Brits(indigenous Brits) whilst empowering the rich right?
- Would she have won the 1983 elections without the Balkans war and super nationalist consciousness that followed after the war?
- Why did Lady Thatcher effect policies to sell off houses built for the poor despite not building a single house throughout he tenure as PM??
- How come the union became more divided than ever during and after her tenure(I don't think the country has recovered from that and I doubt they ever will)??

Truth be told, Lady Thatcher is the reason why Scotland is about to leave the union... Anyway, once the Scots leave with their North sea oil - kats should be ready to pay more taxes... I should be in Aruba with my hispanic chics dancing to calypso and sasa by then... #TeamExpats

Katsumoto:

Are most people born with promised jobs from Heaven? Nigerians work in restaurants based in Nigeria; Brazilians work in restaurants in Brazil; Americans work in Restaurants in the US but the average Brit is too big to work in a British restaurant even when he/she has literacy problems. Hasn’t this always been the problem with the UK?

Nigeria and Brazil - two countries with some of the highest poverty levels in the world,

North America - one of the few western countries with the greatest levels of inequality in the world

Britain - still one of the few western european countries left where a safety net exists for the poorest and most vulnerable people in society although all of this is now being dismantled by Cam Mo.....ron and his cronies.

Young black boys don’t want to go to school but they are all trying out at football clubs. The gals go to nightclubs hoping to snag football players. When they do go to school, then go to study media courses. There are universities offering David Beckham courses. But when they graduate, they expect government to provide them the jobs of their dreams and are too good to work in restaurants.

Despite the fact that you live in this country you still havennt understood that it is set up along very rigid class lines, most people never move out of the class that they were born into as the educational systems is set up to ensure that only the rich can afford good quality education for their children - can you afford to pay froom £28,000 a year to send your child to a fee paying school for 5 years ? I didnt think so.

As if that isnt bad enough the tories have hiked up university tuition fees from £3K per annum to £9,000 per annum - now lets imagine that you have 3 children of university age - can you afford to pay approx £27k for each of them to attend university for 3 years?

This is why your asinine comments are not worthy of a response - tomorrow if your children are shut out of the educational system because you can't afford it how will you feel when people start referring to them as useless lazy bums? How will you feel if people refer to your children as being under acheivers who simply want an easy life without bothering to get an education?
many black kids in this country want to better themselves but the obstacles that are erected in front of them leave them discouraged and disillusioned , many also have been seduced by the media who show case celebrities and tell them that conspicuous consumption is more important than getting an education - so why blame them when they have been brainwashed from age 0 to 18 by tv and magazines? Many black kids also look at the lives of their parents who have ended up in dead end jobs despite their qualifications and think to themselves - i dont want to end up like that.

If immigrants who don’t receive weekly giro, don’t live in council housing and can live on minimum wage, why not brits who receive weekly giro, live rent free/cheap?

Immigrants like you do those jobs not because you are hardworkign but because you have no choice, your govts back home have failed you, so you come to the UK in search of greener pastures and you end up doing the jobs that the indigenous people do not want. Yes, the indigenous people do not have to do them because they can rely on benefits which many immigrants can not but that does not make the immigrants hardworking it simply makes them more vulnerable to to the brutal system of capitalism which exploits the weak. This is actually one of the major reasons why the british govt still tolerates some level of immigration from third world countries - it needs the cheap labour from these countries to keep their economies afloat, so forget about the lies they tell you about how hardworking you are, you are just being used as a pawn, they pay you low wages so that they dont have to pay their own workers a living wage.

If minimum wage jobs are not created for brits, whom then are they created for? Do you even understand the concept of demand and supply? How many media / marketing jobs are there. If a majority of brits want to do easy courses in college, surely its common sense that all can’t be employed in their preferred industry?

As i said earlier minimum wage jobs are created for those at the bottom with the least choices which happen to be immigrants - the least that any citizen of a country can expect from its govt is a decent paying job, affordable good quality education and healthcare, decent and affordable accomodation and a decent pension. the tories are some of the laziest set of individuals you will ever find, many do not and have never worked, they inherit money from their parent's estates and expect to be subsidised by the working classes who do the back breaking work in this country, do you think coal mining is an easy job? how about workign on an assembly line in a factory - explain to me how an upper middle class investment banker is of more use to society than a person who actually makes things like cars, household goods,food, clothes etc.

I don’t know in what circles you socialize but I know Nigerian immigrants have taken hold of IT, Medical, Accounting industries. Indian immigrants control retail, Medical, IT industries. The Polish have taken hold of the building industry? Are these low paying jobs as well? Whilst I agree that racism places a glass ceiling in most industries, surely those who work hard still do well.

I socialise with real workign people who actually understand what is going on, not with money worshipping fantasists like you.

Most of the IT jobs have been outsourced to india and china where workers will be content to accept one fifth the wage that their counterparts in europe or america will accept - the few nigerians who still retain jobs in those areas are only taken on bevcause they will accept a lower wage than a european or an american - no british company will hire a black immigrant and pay the person more than a white person - fact. the same goes for the medical and accountancy fields, also it is overall cheaper to hire qualified black immigrants than pump money into training indigenous people - the bottom line for capitalists is to make profit and that is all thatcher and her cronies ever stood for.

the building industry - same principle - polish people were allowed into this country to undercut indigenous british workers who would not accept the low wages that the poles are more than willing to accept.
As i said earlier - you are delusional - in order for capitalism to operate properly it has to exploit the weakest and most vulnerable in society - working hard under capitalism does not guarantee success because if that were the case the sweat shop workers who are paid 5 cents an hour in india, indonesia, thailand and malaysia would be multimmillionaires but they're not - the same applies to the exploited workers of nigeria who live on starvation wages while the owners of NIke, MTN, Apple, Microsoft, Walmart etc record profits which run into billions.

debosky:

15 pages and no one has done so - except shymexx with his 'increase tax' idea, which doesn't sound credible.

I have heard other arguments though - such as using the increasing North Sea revenues at the time to create new industries to replace those that were being lost, instead of using those revenues to reduce taxes. How exactly this would have worked and what these 'new' industries are is unclear to me.

^^^^

I would have proposed a progressive tax regime (sweetened by a guaranteed tax rebate in subsequent years for business owners and the wealthy who decided to sit the pain out rather than flee to offshore tax havens i.e. if you don't believe in britain enough to keep your money in her and endure temporarily higher taxes, then go! But you won't be able to come back in easily when things get better ). I would definitely not propose a poll tax like mrs thatcher did in the latter part of her reign though.


I would have sold the mines to the workers themselves. It would be up to them to make them profitable or accept the reality that lower wages would be necessary to remain competitive.

^^^^
I expect to be raked over the coals for what I'm sure some other posters would call full blown insanity but this is a marketplace of ideas, no matter how crazy they may sound. Your responses are all welcome.

Katsumoto:

Yes, I am a poor immigrant who is poorly educated, and working on minimum wage but I love Whitey because they didn't send me back at the border with my fake papers.

Really Katz (my Japanese Samurai friend) you mean you have a connection to 'fake papers' no wonder you changed into your new image here

WTF IS THATCHER?
That last name sounds real witchy.....
Rip though..

brilliant speech about Margaret Thatcher's legacy by Glenda Jackson labour MP for Hampstead and Kilburn:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDtClJYJBj8

VolvoS60:

^^^^

I would have proposed a progressive tax regime (sweetened by a guaranteed tax rebate in subsequent years for business owners and the wealthy who decided to sit the pain out rather than flee to offshore tax havens i.e. if you don't believe in britain enough to keep your money in her and endure temporarily higher taxes, then go! But you won't be able to come back in easily when things get better ). I would definitely not propose a poll tax like mrs thatcher did in the latter part of her reign though.

Finally

Let us look at the evidence.
In 1979, basic rate of tax was 33% (reduced to 30%), top rate was 83% (reduced to 60%). Small business tax rate was 42% (reduced to 40%) and Big business rate remained at 52% (this agrees with what you proposed). Personal tax allowances were increased in each budget by Howe and Lawson. At about the time Thatcher left office, basic tax rate had been reduced to 25% and top rate to 40%. Small business rates were pegged to the lower basic tax rate and big business was at 35%.

Now let us look at the tax revenue £ : 1979 - 57m, 1980 - 70m, 1981 - 84m, 1982 - 99m, 1983 - 107m, 1984 - 115m, 1985 - 126m, 1986 - 135m, 1987 -143m, 1988 - 157m, 1989 - 173m, 1990 - 187m. Shymexx, this is the laffer curve I was trying to explain to you earlier. As you reduce tax rates, business have more to invest in. Investments usually lead to more jobs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/tax-receipts-1963

On the basis of the evidence, I think Thatcher got taxation very well. You are right with regards to poll tax; that was a stupid idea but funny enough, many people assume that it was the poll tax riots that led to her ouster. It wasn't.

VolvoS60:


I would have sold the mines to the workers themselves. It would be up to them to make them profitable or accept the reality that lower wages would be necessary to remain competitive.

^^^^
I expect to be raked over the coals for what I'm sure some other posters would call full blown insanity but this is a marketplace of ideas, no matter how crazy they may sound. Your responses are all welcome.

That is actually a good idea. Mines in Europe were heavily subsidised and the amount of subsidy appeared higher as the price of gas reduced and the supply of coal increased. Not all mines were unprofitable. Some of the mines in the midlands had been mechanized and were profitable. Thatcher brought in Ian McGregor who had reformed the steel industry. McGregor had proposed more mechanization and job cuts to make the mines profitable. It meant some mines would have closed. What a lot of folks don't understand is that not all miners were in favour of strikes. But Scargill called for strikes without balloting members first. Miners in Lancashire, Midlands, and North Wales were opposed to strike but leaders called for strike. Some mines were closed permanently even though they were profitable because strikers had ignored engineer recommendations that a lack of maintenance, as a result of the strike, would compromise miners safety.

Assuming that Thatcher sold the uneconomic mines to the miners for a symbolic amount of £1, how likely would they have raised funds for operations? Interest rates hovered around 11-14% and miners had demanded wage increases of approximately 5%. Now how likely would miners, who had demanded annualized wage increases of 5%, have agreed to wage decreases equaling 50%? Second, India imported coal from the UK but by the late 80s, india had increased its own coal industry and had become an exporter. How would the miners have coped with the reduced demand for coal? Would the miners run mines have been able to compete with cheaper coal from India?

Personally, I think mining was done. The main failure of the Thatcher government was that it didn't invest in retraining miners for new skills. Why didn't the conservative government do this? Was it out of malice for the manner in which the miners brought down the conservative government of Edward Heath in 1973? Was it because of the belligerent attitude of the union leaders? Or was it because public sympathy wasn't with the miners given how they had disrupted the country for many years? Many miners changed industry but many believed in mining and weren't ready to change.

shymexx: This is a case of two extreme ideologies(Afrocentricism and Eurocentricism) going at it... However, I still believe Kats' argument is flawed...

Ok, let's forget about the African immigrants and other minorities and debate the topic about what's right for the Brits who own their country and have nowhere to go apart from the UK...

It's their country and they're entitled to enjoying all the goodies that comes with the territory.... Who honestly cares about Thatcher being better than what's attainable on the African continent and how utterly corrupt the continent is... Also, when did Africa become the yardstick to judge anything good?? Anyway, the average Brit thinks Africa is the dark continent and a basket case - and the Brits' struggle is different from that of Africa...

Questions:
- Were the policies effected by Lady Thatcher to destroy the livelihood of peasant Brits(indigenous Brits) whilst empowering the rich right?
- Would she have won the 1983 elections without the Balkans war and super nationalist consciousness that followed after the war?
- Why did Lady Thatcher effect policies to sell off houses built for the poor despite not building a single house throughout he tenure as PM??
- How come the union became more divided than ever during and after her tenure(I don't think the country has recovered from that and I doubt they ever will)??

Truth be told, Lady Thatcher is the reason why Scotland is about to leave the union... Anyway, once the Scots leave with their North sea oil - kats should be ready to pay more taxes... I should be in Aruba with my hispanic chics dancing to calypso and sasa by then... #TeamExpats

How can it be about Afrocentrism when we are discussing an European country? Shouldn't it be about ideology (left wing, centrist, and right wing)?

Answers to your questions?

1. Thatcher didn't destroy their livelihood; they were in a declining industry. It is a fact of life that those who seize opportunities when they arise do better than those who wait for everything to be done for them. When public assets were sold and IPO raised for ownership, the number of citizens owning shares increased from 1m to 10m. That is still the number today. Surely you are not going to argue that 9 million people who bought shares in BA, BG, BP, etc. were rich.

2. It was the Falklands war and it is merely a hypothetical question. It is impossible to state for certain that she would have lost without the war. But its a possibility

3. Right to own was for people residing in council homes to acquire their own property. It wasn't compulsory but it created property ownership for those who would otherwise have not had property ownership. You make it seem like people who resided in council homes were evicted for those who wanted to buy them; that's not the case.

4. That is a very subjective opinion. People who were around in the 70s will tell you Britain was also divided. And thats not even going back to the 16th - 18th century period when Britain was divided along religious lines.

The scots have never wanted union with England and were opposed to the Acts of Union in 1707 even though it was designed to save Scotland from financial ruin.

And lastly, you don't want to know where I am right now.

cap28:

I find that people who come from poverty like you are usually the biggest advocates of the ruling elite - you are not alone in this pathetic mindset, the majority of nigerians like you who grow up in poverty think that if you identify with the rich you automatically are regarded as one of them - I've got news for you - a dog that was born in a stable can never be regarded as anything more than a dog

thank God i am not the only one that has witnessed this. It always baffles me when the most vulnerable are the strongest supporters of the elites most destructive policies.

the fact that we are derailing a thread meant to pay homage to Thatcher's death is a good thing. Katsumoto, cap28, I thank you for your contributions in this regard.

@ Kats

I'm not sure I agree with your view that she did ok on tax. The fact that tax revenues increased isn't sufficient evidence in my opinion. The real test would be thus: would tax revenues have increased regardless of her policies/would they have increased much further if alternative policies were implemented?

In essence, we need to strip out (if possible) what tax revenue increases would have occurred on a 'business as usual' basis and before we can identify whether her measures increased/reduced tax revenue.

Also remember that she benefited from increased tax receipts from North Sea oil and gas - this had little/nothing to do with her tax policies.

debosky: @ Kats

I'm not sure I agree with your view that she did ok on tax. The fact that tax revenues increased isn't sufficient evidence in my opinion. The real test would be thus: would tax revenues have increased regardless of her policies/would they have increased much further if alternative policies were implemented?

In essence, we need to strip out (if possible) what tax revenue increases would have occurred on a 'business as usual' basis and before we can identify whether her measures increased/reduced tax revenue.

Also remember that she benefited from increased tax receipts from North Sea oil and gas - this had little/nothing to do with her tax policies.

The point I was making is that revenues INCREASED in spite of tax rates being reduced for ALL individuals and corporations. Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was at its highest between 1980 and 1989. If there were no tax cuts, revenue may have still increased but revenue did increase despite people and businesses paying less in tax.

And yes increased revenue from North Sea oil was as a result of windfall tax levied on Oil and Banking. See article below.


"Windfall taxes are often championed by the political left as a good way of recouping cash from "fat cats" seen to have made excessive profits. But in fact Margaret Thatcher's government was one of the most notable users of the tactic.

In 1981 the then-chancellor Geoffrey Howe introduced a special budget levy to harvest around £400m from the banks, which were seen to be escaping the pain of that recession.

The move, which creamed off 2.5% of the banks' non-interest bearing current account deposits, caused great consternation on the Conservative benches. However, it was only equivalent to around a fifth of their profits in that 12 months.

The following year the Treasury sought to share the benefit of high oil prices by imposing a special tax on North Sea oil and gas, which raised £2.4bn."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/dec/09/windfall-tax-labour-conservative-tactic


I hope those who claimed Thatcher reduced taxes for Banks can read about the windfall tax on banks.

Yall talk too much.

ThiefOfHearts: Yall talk too much.

Damn!! You're still feisty as ever...

Katsumoto:
How can it be about Afrocentrism when we are discussing an European country? Shouldn't it be about ideology (left wing, centrist, and right wing)?

Answers to your questions?

1. Thatcher didn't destroy their livelihood; they were in a declining industry. It is a fact of life that those who seize opportunities when they arise do better than those who wait for everything to be done for them. When public assets were sold and IPO raised for ownership, the number of citizens owning shares increased from 1m to 10m. That is still the number today. Surely you are not going to argue that 9 million people who bought shares in BA, BG, BP, etc. were rich.

2. It was the Falklands war and it is merely a hypothetical question. It is impossible to state for certain that she would have lost without the war. But its a possibility

3. Right to own was for people residing in council homes to acquire their own property. It wasn't compulsory but it created property ownership for those who would otherwise have not had property ownership. You make it seem like people who resided in council homes were evicted for those who wanted to buy them; that's not the case.

4. That is a very subjective opinion. People who were around in the 70s will tell you Britain was also divided. And thats not even going back to the 16th - 18th century period when Britain was divided along religious lines.

The scots have never wanted union with England and were opposed to the Acts of Union in 1707 even though it was designed to save Scotland from financial ruin.

And lastly, you don't want to know where I am right now.

Obviously, the concept of Afrocentrism is very broad and it also encompasses the struggle(s) of black/African people wherever they might find themselves - either on the continent or in the new world... It's basically black consciousness - using Steve Bantu Biko's ideology... And since her era also affected black folks(who are sadly at the bottom totem pole) the most - perhaps, that's why brother Cap28 has a lot to say... and I absolutely agree with his sentiments... Another thing is that, Afrocentrism consciousness started amongst black folks in the West - US then the consciousness travelled to the UK with early black leaders of Caribbean leaders - before it got to the continent in the 50s through African students in the West(who later became leaders in their respective countries)...

So, Cap28 is right to air his views - no holds barred lol...

1) However, the "opportunities" or the lack thereof that she created with her policies were only opened to people who had capital to seize them... How about those who didn't have the capital??

2) Every knows that the war saved her career - she would have lost the 1983 elections without the war... Hence, why yanks had to back the Brits indirectly with logistics and weapons, despite acting "neutral" in media... Without the yanks, the UK would have lost that war!! I believe the international banksters, plutocrats, and the rulers of world wanted to keep her there to continue what she was asked to do - make them grow fatter whilst destroying the lives of the peasant folks...

3) How do those residing in council own the property?? Public houses should never be sold, period... Those houses were built between to help reduce the shortage of houses for the poor - and people are meant to give them back to the council once they find themselves in a better space... Her policy is the reason why there are homeless people everywhere in the UK with nowhere to live and why people have to be on the waiting list for decades to get a council flat in London... Thanks God for housing benefits!!

4) The UK wasn't divided in the 70s as it now... Heck, the Scots are about to leave and I believe the 2014 memorandum will prove that... They're tired of the English and their conservative views...

Lastly, I think I'm moving to Maui...

I actually like margaret thatcher.. she was a very respectable woman.

^^^^Why won't a young black Nazi like yourself like her??

Just stay in America with your racist and Eurocentric linear thought process...

I dunno about her racism and all, ill have to do more research on that

All i know about thatcher is that she was dignified enough to curtsy to Saudi royalty even though she was a million more powerful and important than they were.

That is the essense of humility, she was a real lady.