Maggie: What would be an apt tribute?

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,023]

Personally I do not see why there should be any kind of ceremony around the football grounds, her passing will be marked by politicians and a full state funeral. I do not celebrate the passing of Maggie Thatcher nor do I mourn her passing.

That she stood up to the unions and the Argies cannot be denied, however I believe some of her policies were the catalyst for some of the ills this country now suffers, not least the deregulation of the banking industry and all the greed that brought, the selling off and cessation of the building of council properties and the over reliance on privatisation, the prime example being the railways which cost the taxpayer way more than a nationalised industry would have done and lined the pockets of executives of the train operating companies.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

Kind of ironic that Thatcher, the queen of privatisation, will have a state funeral...

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

Nutty, for once your user name is very apt. I appriciate you are trying to keep the thread football related but seriously, of all the things that Lady T can be critisiesd for, and there are many even her supporters agree, to condone the disrespect being shown in her death by saying she was responcible for the death of 96 Liverpool fans is as absurd as blaming G Bush for the 3000+ people who died in the twin towers. Before you even get close to laying the blame on Thatcher you have to look at the Liverpool fans at Hysel, the person who designed the Hillsbourgh Stadium, the 1000''s of scousers who tried to get through a 6 ft gap at the same time, the police constable in charge on the day who opened the gates, the match officials who reacted with tortoise like reactions, the emergency services, the FA whom had been warned years earlier when similar events occured, merseyside constabluary and most likely a dozen other ministers and MP''s before to get to the PM.

 

Thatcher gets blamed for many things that would of happened anyway, just as Blair gets blamed for the Iraq war even though America would of gone ahead without us anyway. Having said that I agree with the posters who have said that she was the right person at the right time, where she to some to power today her ham-fisted approach would be a disaster, in the 1970''s it was very much needed.

 

 

[/quote]

 

On the subject of usernames maybe your''s should be Son Ov Thatcher. Because you carry on tarring with her brush. I doubt very much if the 96 who died had anything to do with what happened at hysell let alone the cause of it. What you and others can''t see is that it was thatchers way to wage war on sections of our people by first giving them a label that only the minority deserved. It was this that caused the attitudes of the authorities on the day. Through this they believed that everyone in that pen was a hooligan and everything that happened was their just deserts.

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Kind of ironic that Thatcher, the queen of privatisation, will have a state funeral...[/quote]Ha! You''re right. It should have gone out to tender, with the winner being cheapofuneralsoffthebackofalorry.com

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

Gunn and Thatcher, two very popular people here haha. I agree that the 96 almost certainly didnt have anything to do with Hysel, didnt mean to infer they did (reading back I dont see that I did but if so sorry). What I was saying is that the Liverpool fans at Hysel that contributed to the deaths of Juv fans carry some of the blame for the stereotyping that occured thereafter. Are you saying she was wrong to try and tackle hoolaganism if so I would argue much greater loss of life may have ensued if the problem was left unchecked. Or if you are saying that she was wrong to lable all football fans as hooligans I think you both give her too much credit in terms of dictating public opinion and completely ignore the main driver of public opinion, the press who positivly revel in stiring up outrage.

I do wonder if in 30 years time when Mr Blair finaly goes to the grave people will write on message boards how his war on people who owned a hooded top made them feel like a criminal.

 

 

[Badger 2,405]

Monty, I agree on two things:

1). That data can be interpreted differently, but this is often a deliberate misinterpretation that we get from politicians. Very often the data is pretty clear to the objective person.

2). Net debt rocketed after the financial crisis. It is continuing to soar. Isn''t it about 1200 billion now? Certainly the coalition government will borrow more money than any government in the UK''s history, but I think that it would be unfair to say that they have been on a spending spree.

I go back to my main point re statistics and what they reveal. In this case, they reveal that there is hardly any difference between the two parties on spending plans.In essence there isn''t a cigarette paper between the spending plans of the current coalition government and what the previous government said it would spend: all the fuss is politics. The labour party is currently able to enjoy the same luxury that the current govt. enjoyed before the last election in that they are able to criticise everything without having to be to specific about what they would do

It will be interesting to see how things evolve over the next few years, but if we were looking for an apt tribute for Mrs T, the fact that the Labour government that followed it was "Thatcherite" too, is probably it.

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

Gunn and Thatcher, two very popular people here haha. I agree that the 96 almost certainly didnt have anything to do with Hysel, didnt mean to infer they did (reading back I dont see that I did but if so sorry). What I was saying is that the Liverpool fans at Hysel that contributed to the deaths of Juv fans carry some of the blame for the stereotyping that occured thereafter. Are you saying she was wrong to try and tackle hoolaganism if so I would argue much greater loss of life may have ensued if the problem was left unchecked. Or if you are saying that she was wrong to lable all football fans as hooligans I think you both give her too much credit in terms of dictating public opinion and completely ignore the main driver of public opinion, the press who positivly revel in stiring up outrage.

I do wonder if in 30 years time when Mr Blair finaly goes to the grave people will write on message boards how his war on people who owned a hooded top made them feel like a criminal.

 

 

[/quote]

 

The press didn''t write maggies speeches they just reported them. The Liverpool people in Hysell were no more to blame for the 96 than I was for accepting being herded and penned like an animal. In fact worse than an animal. Either you weren''t there at the time or you have a selective memory.

 

We get the odd binner on here. They are in the minority but they still come. We got the odd hooligan came to football. They were in the minority but they still came. So let''s label all fans as scummer hooligans and treat them as such...

 

 

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

Gunn and Thatcher, two very popular people here haha. I agree that the 96 almost certainly didnt have anything to do with Hysel, didnt mean to infer they did (reading back I dont see that I did but if so sorry). What I was saying is that the Liverpool fans at Hysel that contributed to the deaths of Juv fans carry some of the blame for the stereotyping that occured thereafter. Are you saying she was wrong to try and tackle hoolaganism if so I would argue much greater loss of life may have ensued if the problem was left unchecked. Or if you are saying that she was wrong to lable all football fans as hooligans I think you both give her too much credit in terms of dictating public opinion and completely ignore the main driver of public opinion, the press who positivly revel in stiring up outrage.

I do wonder if in 30 years time when Mr Blair finaly goes to the grave people will write on message boards how his war on people who owned a hooded top made them feel like a criminal.

 

 

[/quote]

 

The press didn''t write maggies speeches they just reported them. The Liverpool people in Hysell were no more to blame for the 96 than I was for accepting being herded and penned like an animal. In fact worse than an animal. Either you weren''t there at the time or you have a selective memory.

 

We get the odd binner on here. They are in the minority but they still come. We got the odd hooligan came to football. They were in the minority but they still came. So let''s label all fans as scummer hooligans and treat them as such...

 

 

[/quote]

maggie probably didnt write maggies speeches.. I do understand what you are saying and you obviously have every right to feel aggreaved at the way football fans were policed during this dark spell of English football but its still a MASSIVE leap to lay the blame for the 96 with Thatcher. yes the press report the PM speeches, a nice little column on page 2 or 3 while their front page would have a bloodied millwall fan smashing a broken bottle into the face of a leeds fan under a bold title of  ''Hooligans shame us all again''. When I first heard about what was happening on that day at Hillsborough my first thought was that the scousers have kicked off again, and if people are honest I am sure many other thought the same and im sorry Nutty but the reason wasnt maggie, it had nothing to do with her speeches which didnt interest me at the time, it was because that was the public/cultural perception at the time which policitcs reflected not directed..in my opinion.

 

 

[Webbo118 0]

WHY IS THIS THREAD STILL RUNNING? WHAT HAS IT TO DO WITH NCFC? IF PEOPLE WANT TO EXPRESS POLITICAL VIEWS (EXTREME OF OTHERWISE), PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE FIND A MORE APPROPRIATE SITE.

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

[quote user="Webbo118"]WHY IS THIS THREAD STILL RUNNING? WHAT HAS IT TO DO WITH NCFC? IF PEOPLE WANT TO EXPRESS POLITICAL VIEWS (EXTREME OF OTHERWISE), PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE FIND A MORE APPROPRIATE SITE.[/quote]

 

 

Psssst.. you''ve left your caps lock on mate.

 

And in answer to your question, I believe its related to whether a minutes silence should be held at the next Norwich City match, easy to answer yes or no but more difficult to explain why without talking politics, but in light of your objection i will leave the thread and read more about why we need to sack our manager. Thanks nutty for the mature and intelligent debate, I enjoyed it.

 

 

[Shaun Tilly Lace 0]

87 year old woman dies. It happens every day.

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

[quote user="Webbo118"]WHY IS THIS THREAD STILL RUNNING? WHAT HAS IT TO DO WITH NCFC? IF PEOPLE WANT TO EXPRESS POLITICAL VIEWS (EXTREME OF OTHERWISE), PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE FIND A MORE APPROPRIATE SITE.[/quote]

 

 

Psssst.. you''ve left your caps lock on mate.

 

And in answer to your question, I believe its related to whether a minutes silence should be held at the next Norwich City match, easy to answer yes or no but more difficult to explain why without talking politics, but in light of your objection i will leave the thread and read more about why we need to sack our manager. Thanks nutty for the mature and intelligent debate, I enjoyed it.

 

 

[/quote]

 

The 13 pages and the mostly responsible posts show that there is a place on here for it. Perhaps Webbo could start a thread with one of his caps rants. If it attracts 13 pages of mostly responsible posts it will show there''s a place for that too.

 

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

I just wish to complain about Purple Canary posting in Ipswich Blue.

Aaaarrrgghh!

[Joanna Grey 0]

Plenty of 59 year old men die every day as well.

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

[quote user="Webbo118"]WHY IS THIS THREAD STILL RUNNING? WHAT HAS IT TO DO WITH NCFC? IF PEOPLE WANT TO EXPRESS POLITICAL VIEWS (EXTREME OF OTHERWISE), PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE FIND A MORE APPROPRIATE SITE.[/quote]

 

 

Psssst.. you''ve left your caps lock on mate.

 

And in answer to your question, I believe its related to whether a minutes silence should be held at the next Norwich City match, easy to answer yes or no but more difficult to explain why without talking politics, but in light of your objection i will leave the thread and read more about why we need to sack our manager. Thanks nutty for the mature and intelligent debate, I enjoyed it.

 

 

[/quote]

 

The 13 pages and the mostly responsible posts show that there is a place on here for it. Perhaps Webbo could start a thread with one of his caps rants. If it attracts 13 pages of mostly responsible posts it will show there''s a place for that too.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Yeah right. I obviously live in a different world to you. Damn! Taken that bloody caps lock off!

[Badger 2,405]

Yes there have been many interesting posts on this thread.

I don''t have a problem with seeing posts on other subjects - we all have the same thing in common - our allegiance to Norwich City.

Certainly I don''t limit my discussion to purely football when I talk with fellow fans in "real life," although it usually predominates, why should a message board be any different?

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

The relevance of Thatcher to football? She wanted all fans to be part of a membership scheme. Fortunately she dropped the idea in the face of fierce opposition. She gave her supporter Rupert Murdoch a licence to run a satellite TV station.

 

---This message comes in communist red, as Tangible seems to object to Tory blue. 

[Yellowbeagle 0]

[quote user="paul moy"]

[quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"]Nutty Nigel wrote: You assume that everybody who finds Thatcher abhorrent must have been on the side of Scargill. Thatcher believes that everybody who attends football matches is a hooligan and should be treated like an animals. the present tories have now stooped so low as to tar all benefit claimants with families with the Philpott brush. Where have I said that everybody who finds Thatcher abhorrent to be on the side of Scargill? Once again you are making false assumptions to denigrate a point of view that was never expressed in the first place. As for the Tories tarring all benefit claimants with families with the Philpott brush it is yet more rubbish from you. Where is the evidence for this purile claim. Osborne was asked whether Philpott through his manipulation of his wife and lover accessing £60000+ per year in benefits (equivalent to a taxable income in excess of £100000 pa) meant the welfare system was at fault. Osborne replied that whilst Philpott alone was responsible for his actions it was not unreasonable to have a debate as to whether a system that allowed manipulation like this was in need of review. I''d suggest most rationale people would agree with that. Introducing a cap on benefits equivalent to the annual income of working people will hopefully prevent the Philpotts of this world being able to abuse the system. This is totally different to your absurd suggestion that this means all benefit claimants are being labelled as Philpotts.[/quote]

A simple change such as restricting child benefit to the first one or two kids or abolishing it all together would stop the likes of Philpott breeding 17 kids to exploit a crazy welfare system.  I''m sure Thatcher would have done something like this by now whereas we have the useless Coalition doing nothing in order to avoid the lefty flak.

[/quote]

Stopping benefits at 2 children will push the rest of the children into poverty. I couldnt give two hoots about that parents but the kids are innocent they dont ask to be born. The real problem here is when a Parent with 10 kids spends the money for those 10 kids on fags, booze, drugs anything for themselves that inst ultimately for those kids. The money needs to be ring fenced so parents have to spend it on feeding and clothing the children and providing a warm home, there has to be away to do that even if it''s vouchers for specific uses rather than benefits in the form straight cash, maybe stop straight cash for the parents too, making the incentive to work being that you can spend your wages on whatever you please. I doubt any government Maggie Thatcher''s or otherwise would have want to be tared with the one that pushed children into dangerous levels of poverty though.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

The relevance of Thatcher to football? She wanted all fans to be part of a membership scheme. Fortunately she dropped the idea in the face of fierce opposition. She gave her supporter Rupert Murdoch a licence to run a satellite TV station.

 

---

This message comes in communist red, as Tangible seems to object to Tory blue. 

[/quote]

Get it right Purple, its Ipswich blue that I dont like.

Now you are posting in Stoke red......call yourself a city supporter!

[Monty13 2,232]

I have often thought like Yellowbeagle has said the vouchers that could only be spent on necessities (food/childrens clothes etc.) would be the most effective replacement to childcare benefits.

Then those who don''t have benefits can''t complain that those that do are spending it on booze, fags and sky tv and those that really need it get taken care of.

I''m sure it wouldn''t be that difficult. As soon as one Supermarket agreed the others would have to join in or risk losing potential billions in income.

[Yellow Wal 314]

"Yellowbeagle" Stopping benefits at 2 children will push the rest of the children into poverty. I couldnt give two hoots about that parents but the kids are innocent they dont ask to be born. The real problem here is when a Parent with 10 kids spends the money for those 10 kids on fags, booze, drugs anything for themselves that inst ultimately for those kids. The money needs to be ring fenced so parents have to spend it on feeding and clothing the children and providing a warm home, there has to be away to do that even if it''s vouchers for specific uses rather than benefits in the form straight cash, maybe stop straight cash for the parents too, making the incentive to work being that you can spend your wages on whatever you please. I doubt any government Maggie Thatcher''s or otherwise would have want to be tared with the one that pushed children into dangerous levels of poverty though.

The ridiculous idea of stopping benefits at 2 children would indeed only harm the innocent child.

I fully agree with a voucher system, punishable by large fines for irregular usage by recipients and/or shop keepers.

Personally I don''t mind paying for the welfare of young children but I object strongly to paying to keep the Philpots of this world in booze, fags, drugs and the rest.

[Monty13 2,232]

I''ll agree badger that whichever party was in power the state of play would be very similar at the moment and the difference in what was being cut and how fast would be the politics.

latest figures:

£1,161.5 billion at the end of February 2013, equivalent to 73.5 % of GDP.

2013 deficit apparently 65billion down from 148.6billion in 2010

The coalition will probably borrow similar levels to the last term of the previous government, the difference being the deficit is reducing.

I struggle to believe a Labour or Lab-Lib coalition would have done anything vastly different economically.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"]City 1st wrote; So can you or Dr Crafty (or whatever other name is being used) point us to evidence of that claim, which is so you don''t get confused - "Why did Nelson Mandela praise her for her role in bringing about the downfall of apartheid?" No I can''t point you to direct evidence as I didn''t think 20+ years ago when he said it that i would need to make a copy of the reference in order to satisfy you 20+ years later. That doesn''t mean it was not said. I remember it because I thought at the time it was a surprising thing to say. Of course you are not going to believe me because you don''t want it to be true. Well that''s your problem not mine.[/quote]

 

Son whilst there is ample evidence of Mandela being called a terrotist by Thatcher you cannot find one single bit of evidence of your claim. Something that reasoned folk might think would be well documented given Thatchers stance on apartheid.

 

It is not about belief either. It is about integrity of posts, and in the wider context having many of these myths challenged lest they fall into being accepted facts.

 

It''s not about me not wanting it to be true either, as, as things stand it is not true - it is about why you want it to be true and why you and others are so desperate to rewrite history. This has been done before, that is why it is importnat that this kind of misinformation is challenged.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="paul moy"]

[quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"]City 1st wrote; So can you or Dr Crafty (or whatever other name is being used) point us to evidence of that claim, which is so you don''t get confused - "Why did Nelson Mandela praise her for her role in bringing about the downfall of apartheid?" No I can''t point you to direct evidence as I didn''t think 20+ years ago when he said it that i would need to make a copy of the reference in order to satisfy you 20+ years later. That doesn''t mean it was not said. I remember it because I thought at the time it was a surprising thing to say. Of course you are not going to believe me because you don''t want it to be true. Well that''s your problem not mine.[/quote]

In mid 80s Thatcher and Ronald Reagan called for an end to apartheid and the release of Mandela or sanctions were to be imposed under the Comprehensive Apartheid Act* which was passed in the US in 1986 . This was the catalyst for the end of apartheid and presumably why Mandela praised her.

[/quote]

 

"In mid 80s Thatcher and Ronald Reagan called for an end to apartheid and the release of Mandela "

 

That is actually a blatant lie. 

 

The Comprehensive Anti Apartheid Act was passed over the veto of Reagan who tried to block it. In fact on July 22, 1986, Reagan called proposed sanctions against South Africa a “historic act of folly.” To which Desmond Tutu responded by stating  “Your president is the pits as far as blacks are concerned. I think the West, for my part, can go to hell.”

 

There was never a call for an end to apartheid from either of them. In fact Thatcher contiously opposed the imposing of sanctions on South africa and continued to call Mandela a terrorist throught the run up to the end of apartheid..

 

Whether their actions were right or wrong is maybe another discussion, by what is not wrong is the evidence that demonstrates yet more lies and misinformation are still being peddled by those who would re write history.

 

Folk need to ask themselves what else are they being lied about in this great crusade to distort the truth - and how much more was lied about to justify previous actions. Many look back and wonder how previous generations were ''fooled'', how they went along with dangerous stuff, with leaders that is were clearly a threat to their welfare.

 

Well, perhaps some be best to start looking a little closer at what is being put out here as the past is now being written in a way that would embarrass even the Soviet Union - aswhen  it previously talked of the great triumphs of dear old Uncle Joe.

 

 

* Freudlian slip, perhaps ?

 

 

[Syteanric 1]

a mass playing of "in the City" or "Eton rifles" by the Jam...Fans of the band will know why and the meanings of the songs will know why!

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Yellowbeagle"][quote user="paul moy"]

[quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"]Nutty Nigel wrote: You assume that everybody who finds Thatcher abhorrent must have been on the side of Scargill. Thatcher believes that everybody who attends football matches is a hooligan and should be treated like an animals. the present tories have now stooped so low as to tar all benefit claimants with families with the Philpott brush. Where have I said that everybody who finds Thatcher abhorrent to be on the side of Scargill? Once again you are making false assumptions to denigrate a point of view that was never expressed in the first place. As for the Tories tarring all benefit claimants with families with the Philpott brush it is yet more rubbish from you. Where is the evidence for this purile claim. Osborne was asked whether Philpott through his manipulation of his wife and lover accessing £60000+ per year in benefits (equivalent to a taxable income in excess of £100000 pa) meant the welfare system was at fault. Osborne replied that whilst Philpott alone was responsible for his actions it was not unreasonable to have a debate as to whether a system that allowed manipulation like this was in need of review. I''d suggest most rationale people would agree with that. Introducing a cap on benefits equivalent to the annual income of working people will hopefully prevent the Philpotts of this world being able to abuse the system. This is totally different to your absurd suggestion that this means all benefit claimants are being labelled as Philpotts.[/quote]

A simple change such as restricting child benefit to the first one or two kids or abolishing it all together would stop the likes of Philpott breeding 17 kids to exploit a crazy welfare system.  I''m sure Thatcher would have done something like this by now whereas we have the useless Coalition doing nothing in order to avoid the lefty flak.

[/quote]

Stopping benefits at 2 children will push the rest of the children into poverty. I couldnt give two hoots about that parents but the kids are innocent they dont ask to be born. The real problem here is when a Parent with 10 kids spends the money for those 10 kids on fags, booze, drugs anything for themselves that inst ultimately for those kids. The money needs to be ring fenced so parents have to spend it on feeding and clothing the children and providing a warm home, there has to be away to do that even if it''s vouchers for specific uses rather than benefits in the form straight cash, maybe stop straight cash for the parents too, making the incentive to work being that you can spend your wages on whatever you please. I doubt any government Maggie Thatcher''s or otherwise would have want to be tared with the one that pushed children into dangerous levels of poverty though.

[/quote]

The answer is obviously to phase it out. Those already claiming still receive it although at a gradually reducing rate over the years but for any future kids it will not apply. Simples!!! If you cannot afford them don''t have them.  

[paul moy 235]

[quote user=" Badger"]Monty, I agree on two things: 1). That data can be interpreted differently, but this is often a deliberate misinterpretation that we get from politicians. Very often the data is pretty clear to the objective person. 2). Net debt rocketed after the financial crisis. It is continuing to soar. Isn''t it about 1200 billion now? Certainly the coalition government will borrow more money than any government in the UK''s history, but I think that it would be unfair to say that they have been on a spending spree. I go back to my main point re statistics and what they reveal. In this case, they reveal that there is hardly any difference between the two parties on spending plans.In essence there isn''t a cigarette paper between the spending plans of the current coalition government and what the previous government said it would spend: all the fuss is politics. The labour party is currently able to enjoy the same luxury that the current govt. enjoyed before the last election in that they are able to criticise everything without having to be to specific about what they would do It will be interesting to see how things evolve over the next few years, but if we were looking for an apt tribute for Mrs T, the fact that the Labour government that followed it was "Thatcherite" too, is probably it.[/quote]

 

Net debt is soaring not least because of the spending habits inherited from 13 years of Labour profligacy. The Coalition have had to deal with massive welfare commitments/fraud, PFI waste, public sector expansion, public sector pensions commitments etc made during a time of boom driven by debt at the same time as a worldwide recession hit us. Tax receipts at a time of boom which sustained the outgoings are now far less at this current time leaving an ongoing massive black-hole necessitating spending cuts.  At a time of boom Labour should have been saving a percentage of tax received ready for a downturn which is always part of a natural economic cycle but instead deliberately left the coffers empty. There''s only one party to blame for the ongoing mess and they are still in denial that cuts are necessary.  

 

[Yellowbeagle 0]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="Yellowbeagle"][quote user="paul moy"]

[quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"]Nutty Nigel wrote: You assume that everybody who finds Thatcher abhorrent must have been on the side of Scargill. Thatcher believes that everybody who attends football matches is a hooligan and should be treated like an animals. the present tories have now stooped so low as to tar all benefit claimants with families with the Philpott brush. Where have I said that everybody who finds Thatcher abhorrent to be on the side of Scargill? Once again you are making false assumptions to denigrate a point of view that was never expressed in the first place. As for the Tories tarring all benefit claimants with families with the Philpott brush it is yet more rubbish from you. Where is the evidence for this purile claim. Osborne was asked whether Philpott through his manipulation of his wife and lover accessing £60000+ per year in benefits (equivalent to a taxable income in excess of £100000 pa) meant the welfare system was at fault. Osborne replied that whilst Philpott alone was responsible for his actions it was not unreasonable to have a debate as to whether a system that allowed manipulation like this was in need of review. I''d suggest most rationale people would agree with that. Introducing a cap on benefits equivalent to the annual income of working people will hopefully prevent the Philpotts of this world being able to abuse the system. This is totally different to your absurd suggestion that this means all benefit claimants are being labelled as Philpotts.[/quote]

A simple change such as restricting child benefit to the first one or two kids or abolishing it all together would stop the likes of Philpott breeding 17 kids to exploit a crazy welfare system.  I''m sure Thatcher would have done something like this by now whereas we have the useless Coalition doing nothing in order to avoid the lefty flak.

[/quote]

Stopping benefits at 2 children will push the rest of the children into poverty. I couldnt give two hoots about that parents but the kids are innocent they dont ask to be born. The real problem here is when a Parent with 10 kids spends the money for those 10 kids on fags, booze, drugs anything for themselves that inst ultimately for those kids. The money needs to be ring fenced so parents have to spend it on feeding and clothing the children and providing a warm home, there has to be away to do that even if it''s vouchers for specific uses rather than benefits in the form straight cash, maybe stop straight cash for the parents too, making the incentive to work being that you can spend your wages on whatever you please. I doubt any government Maggie Thatcher''s or otherwise would have want to be tared with the one that pushed children into dangerous levels of poverty though.

[/quote]

The answer is obviously to phase it out. Those already claiming still receive it although at a gradually reducing rate over the years but for any future kids it will not apply. Simples!!! If you cannot afford them don''t have them.  

[/quote]

Not really simple though and not the answer either for so many reasons. Although agree something needs to be done. 

[ricardo 7,385]

Well I''ve just come back from a pleasant day out in North Norfolk with Mrs R and found the Mrs T thread still going. Lots of very interesting and well thought out points raised by people from both ends of the political spectrum.Quite plainly she was a woman who polarized opinions.Despite the protestations from the left there can be no doubting that she was one of the major political figures of the 20th century. She won the big arguments of the day and changed the political landscape. The measure of the woman can be seen by the shadow she cast and of our subsequent leaders have had to define themselves by it. That should be tribute enough for anyone.

[Bill 1,788]

odd how pretty much the same stuff happened across the rest of Western Europe yet she wasn''t their Prime Minister

 

likewise how the recent slump that hit the rest of Western Europe is blamed by some on Gordon Brown, yet he was only Britain''s Prime Minister

 

as the funeral gets nearer I expect the claims to become even more absurd and will no doubt climb to North Korean levels of delusion

 

perhaps her dear friend, one James Savile, might be brought back into the fold during this period of re writing of history

 

who knows