Turn on thread page Beta

Did you live through the Thatcher years? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Are you suggesting everyone who works is working class?
    working class: people who get the money to buy the neccessaties and luxuries of life primarily by working for a wage or salary (selling thei labour power) - or dependants of.

    capitalist class: people who get the money yo buy the neccessaties and luxuries of life through capital (money, means of production etc)

    if you think owning a company that rents out houses is working then not everyone who works is working class. I don't have that opinion of them. I classify that as owning and the people who work for the owner as working.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Just because 'not all' did, didn't mean the majority didn't.

    Economic credibility was still the Conservatives strongest area, way more so than law and order for example.
    You misunderstood my comment. I wasn't mentioning numbers. I wrote "not at all", as in I disagree not as in not all people.

    The majority didn't vote Labour
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyrannosaurus Cal)
    I was born in '88, but my family was still feeling the strain, as a result of Thatcher's policies, until the mid 90's.
    This, except I was born in '89.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    working class: people who get the money to buy the neccessaties and luxuries of life primarily by working for a wage or salary (selling thei labour power) - or dependants of.

    capitalist class: people who get the money yo buy the neccessaties and luxuries of life through capital (money, means of production etc)

    if you think owning a company that rents out houses is working then not everyone who works is working class. I don't have that opinion of them. I classify that as owning and the people who work for the owner as working.
    Glad I clarified, I think everyone else here goes by:

    Working
    Middle
    Upper

    So lawyers are working class and market stall holders are capitalist class?

    Interesting!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    You misunderstood my comment. I wasn't mentioning numbers. I wrote "not at all", as in I disagree not as in not all people.

    The majority didn't vote Labour
    Sorry I didn't realise the Lib Dems ran on a 'smaller govt' platform in '97

    Did they?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Glad I clarified, I think everyone else here goes by:

    Working
    Middle
    Upper

    So lawyers are working class and market stall holders are capitalist class?

    Interesting!
    yeah a lot of people do use those definitions.

    My definition is one of economic class. I.e. HOW you get the money which buys the stuff you need denotes your class.

    Yes lawyers are working class.

    market stall holders are petty capitalists yes.

    wanything wrong with those definitions?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    You misunderstood my comment. I wasn't mentioning numbers. I wrote "not at all", as in I disagree not as in not all people.
    How does that make sense in reply to me saying:

    'Certainly in '97 people thought it was too small.'
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I lived through one of them :pierre:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Just because 'not all' did, didn't mean the majority didn't.

    Economic credibility was still the Conservatives strongest area, way more so than law and order for example.
    I don't think the economy played much of a part in the 1997 election. I remember seeing an interview with Ken Clarke when he expressed his frustration at the fact that the 'economy' had been up the agenda for the past four elections, but after the best period of economic stability of that whole Tory administration, the economy was off peoples radars in 1997. It generally is when the economy is going well.

    The big problem for the Tories in 1997 was the general impression that they were a party full of sleazy idiots who would get caught doing dodgy dealings or screwing around behind their wives' backs. When the media gets its teeth into a party en masse its very difficult to win the PR and the press were merciless against the Tories during the mid 1990s, just as they were on Gordon Brown after the financial crisis happened. I think the press can smell blood when they think a change is inevitable, and want to associate with the likely winners as they want favourable policy from the incoming government.

    I didn't see the ERM as an issue of Tory economic credibility. There was a consensus between the official party line of Conservatives and Labour that the ERM was the way to go, it turned out to backfire and the Tories were on watch when it went wrong so they copped the flak, just like there was consensus in the mid 2000s over the laissez faire approach to bank regulation. So it was as disingenuous of Labour to claim the Tories had lost their credibility over the ERM as it is for the Tories nowadays to complain about Labour's lack of bank regulation.

    In John Major's book he said that when he won in 1992 he felt then that whatever happened in the next 5 years the odds were that they would lose power, he thought winning 4 consecutive elections was stretching the elastic of democracy as far as it would go. I think that's a fair comment. Out of the era 1979-1997 the most stable prosperous years were probably 1994-97 but that was the era when the Tories were dead and buried in the polls.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    yeah a lot of people do use those definitions.

    My definition is one of economic class. I.e. HOW you get the money which buys the stuff you need denotes your class.

    Yes lawyers are working class.

    market stall holders are petty capitalists yes.

    wanything wrong with those definitions?
    Not especially, as I said, I was just clarifying.

    It does just feel a bit wrong to have Fred the Shred as working class...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Glad I clarified, I think everyone else here goes by:

    Working
    Middle
    Upper

    So lawyers are working class and market stall holders are capitalist class?

    Interesting!
    What about people who work in Front Office IB?
    They exist solely by selling their labour which is why they are worked into the ground by their bosses who don't care about their health, they consider them as disposable labour to be forced to work as many hours a week as they can, allowing them only the minimum to sleep and eat to sustain themselves.

    Workers of the City unite you have nothing to lose but your servitude.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    How does that make sense in reply to me saying:

    'Certainly in '97 people thought it was too small.'
    I'm confused as to how this discussion of mandate is relevant when it comes to criticising a particular administrations track record. Whether or not the electorate thought it was 'too small' holds no importance as far as answering the question 'did New Labour' expand the state further than was necessary?'

    I could have the mandate from the public to privatise the entire country, but having that mandate does not make the action worthwhile or correct.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I got my first job in the Thatcher years. Inventory control clerk.

    Never liked the Smiths. All that miserablist moaning.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    I don't think the economy played much of a part in the 1997 election. I remember seeing an interview with Ken Clarke when he expressed his frustration at the fact that the 'economy' had been up the agenda for the past four elections, but after the best period of economic stability of that whole Tory administration, the economy was off peoples radars in 1997. It generally is when the economy is going well.

    The big problem for the Tories in 1997 was the general impression that they were a party full of sleazy idiots who would get caught doing dodgy dealings or screwing around behind their wives' backs. When the media gets its teeth into a party en masse its very difficult to win the PR and the press were merciless against the Tories during the mid 1990s, just as they were on Gordon Brown after the financial crisis happened. I think the press can smell blood when they think a change is inevitable, and want to associate with the likely winners as they want favourable policy from the incoming government.

    I didn't see the ERM as an issue of Tory economic credibility. There was a consensus between the official party line of Conservatives and Labour that the ERM was the way to go, it turned out to backfire and the Tories were on watch when it went wrong so they copped the flak, just like there was consensus in the mid 2000s over the laissez faire approach to bank regulation. So it was as disingenuous of Labour to claim the Tories had lost their credibility over the ERM as it is for the Tories nowadays to complain about Labour's lack of bank regulation.

    In John Major's book he said that when he won in 1992 he felt then that whatever happened in the next 5 years the odds were that they would lose power, he thought winning 4 consecutive elections was stretching the elastic of democracy as far as it would go. I think that's a fair comment. Out of the era 1979-1997 the most stable prosperous years were probably 1994-97 but that was the era when the Tories were dead and buried in the polls.
    The Conservatives used the economy, (remember the 'evil eyes campaign). It wasn't a strong feature of the campaign but was the only wimper the Tories put up.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Sorry I didn't realise the Lib Dems ran on a 'smaller govt' platform in '97

    Did they?
    Lib Dem share of the vote went down

    I wasn't including the Lib Dems - they are a protest vote. Their "core" isn't all that large.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    I'm confused as to how this discussion of mandate is relevant when it comes to criticising a particular administrations track record. Whether or not the electorate thought it was 'too small' holds no importance as far as answering the question 'did New Labour' expand the state further than was necessary?'

    I could have the mandate from the public to privatise the entire country, but having that mandate does not make the action worthwhile or correct.
    Thats very true, but the question I asked is 'whats the right size'?

    Thats purely subjective and driven by what people want.

    My point was that its not like Labour did it and everyone was disagreeing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Not especially, as I said, I was just clarifying.

    It does just feel a bit wrong to have Fred the Shred as working class...
    yeah it does if you look at it from a cultural point of view agreed. Lawyers et al. may not, in general, be the most radical section of workers (i no a couple of commie lawyers, still), but they are paid a wage and that means they are working class in an economic sense.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Lib Dem share of the vote went down

    I wasn't including the Lib Dems - they are a protest vote. Their "core" isn't all that large.
    Not sure what the movement has to do with anything apart from votes moved from them to |labour to ensure the Tories were sent packing - how does that diminish my point that for the sake of this they were more in Labours camp than the Tories?

    Discount them and the other minor parties and Labour won the majority of the vote. So either way my point stands.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    yeah it does if you look at it from a cultural point of view agreed. Lawyers et al. may not, in general, be the most radical section of workers (i no a couple of commie lawyers, still), but they are paid a wage and that means they are working class in an economic sense.
    Sure, and then they become pensioners and are suddenly capitalist class.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    I supect that many people here were not alive, or were not unemployed and looking for work during the Thatcher years. They have not lived through that very desparate time from the early 1980s onwards which produced bands like The Smiths whose lyrics of hopelessness, despair, depression and angst came out of Thatcher's Britain. They have not been affected by those times. Let me say this to you: had you been, you'd would wish you never were.
    Well I grew up on the otherside of the "Manche". I'm French and I grew up under a left governement. Whereas Thatcher was fighting unemployement by relaxing the employement laws and getting the economy sorted, our president, Mitterand was saying that unemployement can't be fight, in other word: "c'est la vie". Since then the French have "enjoyed" a much higher rate of unemployement than England.

    As for the youth, getting a job if you don't have a degree was nearly impossible when I left France, 12 years ago. When I arrived here in England, I was astonished to see so many people without even an A-Level working in jobs such at banks tills or in office.

    Still now, young people in England are lucky compared to the ones in France. You can still get a job with your degree. In France, only 28% of those who start a degree will actually get a degree. And then, majority of them are going to work in Supermarket ("Auchan", "Leclerc", etc..) or in other dead-end jobs.

    The reason for this is that in France, once you start working, it's really difficult to get rid of you if don't work properly. So for graduate, employers always ask for impossible things such as 3-5 years experience and the minimum salary. They don't want to take chances with young people.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.