Baroness Thatcher - Dead / RIP

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊



HovaGirl

I'll try a breakfast pie
Jul 16, 2009
3,139
West Hove
Are you sure about this?

Well, funny you should ask, because I'm trying to think where I learnt this from. I think I was actually taught it in school many decades ago. Each note and each coin of our currency has a a value. It's not the coin or note itself which is valuable, but they're all rather like IOU notes, in that they represent a true national value, which is the gold in the vaults of the Bank of England. If we have a billion pounds worth of gold in our vaults, then a billion pounds of currency can circulate. Hence the term "printing money", because you can print as much money as you like, but it has to be backed up by a true thing of value, such as the gold. I think the Fort Knox gold plays much the same role.

Thinking about it, perhaps one of the problems with the global economy is, that not all money is actually backed up by a thing of value, which it should be. It's just printed paper flying around, and it's now being called in. We're all wondering "who has the money because no one seems to have any but it's all going somewhere", is because much of the money in circulation didn't actually exist, except as numbers on bank printouts. Now, all those who are owed money, want it back, and there isn't enough of it to go around, because because the global accounts are bigger than the global amount of money actually in circulation.
 






HovaGirl

I'll try a breakfast pie
Jul 16, 2009
3,139
West Hove
Let's add a bit of a correction here ,the sequence runs from the 2 Labour wins before Thatcher got in, this is % of the vote, the only voices that count of course:

37% - Labour
39% - Labour
44% - Con
43% - Con
42% - Con
42% - Con
43% - Labour
40% - Labour
35% - Labour
36% - Con

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/uktable.htm

So NONE of those political parties ever actually had a majority.
 




BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
17,229
Quote Originally Posted by Dandyman View Post
The majority of the British people never supported her - that is a simple fact.

The simple fact is they did. And voted her in three times. She was Prime Minister for 11 years. The Conservatives were in power for a further 7 years after that. 18 years' continuous rule.

The simple fact is that the majority of Left-Wing people didn't and don't support her. Even those who don't even know what Left-Wing is.

Probably worth quoting what was actually said.
 














The Spanish

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2008
6,477
P


i bet she thought that was brilliant and would go down in history. vain showboating woman.

ithat lesbian comedians "sometimes we're all like that" tirade on Im a Celebrity springs to mind, and that was perhaps was 1000x more incisive and compelling than this tedious cliche riddled showing off.
 


soistes

Well-known member
Sep 12, 2012
2,646
Brighton
It means more than half. So Thatcher never had a majority of the population, or of the electorate, or of the voting electorate who voted for her. End of story.

It's not a point that's debatable on the basis of political ideology. It's a simple point of arithmetic and English language.

I admire your patience in explaining this so many times but it's clearly a concept that's beyond some posters on here.

She did of course, because of first-past-the-post, have a majority of parliamentary seats, but that's another story, and not the point being debated.
 






somerset

New member
Jul 14, 2003
6,600
Yatton, North Somerset
It means more than half. So Thatcher never had a majority of the population, or of the electorate, or of the voting electorate who voted for her. End of story.

It's not a point that's debatable on the basis of political ideology. It's a simple point of arithmetic and English language.

I admire your patience in explaining this so many times but it's clearly a concept that's beyond some posters on here.

She did of course, because of first-past-the-post, have a majority of parliamentary seats, but that's another story, and not the point being debated.

ma·jor·i·ty**
/məˈjôrətē/
Noun
The greater number: "in the majority of cases"; "a majority decision".
The number by which votes for one candidate in an election are more than those for all other
 


BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
17,229
ma·jor·i·ty**
/məˈjôrətē/
Noun
The greater number: "in the majority of cases"; "a majority decision".
The number by which votes for one candidate in an election are more than those for all other

So you are saying "the majority of British people supported her" is correct?
 






SK1NT

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2003
8,744
Thames Ditton
Dunce. Have a look at the wider picture and you'll notice that dear old maggie come top in a national poll as best PM. It's only buffoons like yourself who thinks different and the teeny boppers on here.

It's came top. Past tense not "come top".

Another product of Thatchers school
 




SK1NT

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2003
8,744
Thames Ditton
No, but he sold our gold at a rock-bottom price. The value of our currency depends on how much gold we have in our national vaults. It means our currency isn't actually backed up by enough gold.

If Thatchers government hadn't sold all the Silver Brown may not have sold the gold.
 






Well, funny you should ask, because I'm trying to think where I learnt this from. I think I was actually taught it in school many decades ago. Each note and each coin of our currency has a a value. It's not the coin or note itself which is valuable, but they're all rather like IOU notes, in that they represent a true national value, which is the gold in the vaults of the Bank of England. If we have a billion pounds worth of gold in our vaults, then a billion pounds of currency can circulate. Hence the term "printing money", because you can print as much money as you like, but it has to be backed up by a true thing of value, such as the gold. I think the Fort Knox gold plays much the same role.

This has not been the case since the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971; and the UK has not had a 'proper' gold standard (which is the term for having a currency supported by a hoard of gold) since 1931 (Bretton Woods tied sterling to the dollar, and the US at that time were willing to exchange dollars directly for gold).

There's been a (primarily academic) discussion about the role of fiat currency (the current system, where central banks print as much money as they like) in the financial/economic crisis and how alternative systems might work (or otherwise). But as of yet no country (to my knowledge) has been brave enough to try. There is an argument that Bitcoins (or at least the model behind them) might become a viable alternative, although with no intrinsic value (beyond what people are willing to pay for them) and a limited supply its difficult to see a mainstream future for them.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top