You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A minutes silence for Maggie!
- Thread starter blueste41
- Start date
jitsubluedan
Well-Known Member
Prestwich_Blue said:I'm laughing at the irony of that statement, which also sums up the implacable anti-Thatcher elements on here.jitsubluedan said:You are a true child of Thatcher as shown by your opening statement which is arrogant and leaves no room for argument; absolutely no room for concensus - just like the woman herself.
The true consensus is that she did some things right and some things wrong and if you really lived through the mid-1970's, you'd know what a fucking mess this country was in at that time.
For every person she put on the scrapheap, she helped others move a rung or more up the ladder, through being able to set up businesses, giving them far more disposable income, allowing them to own their own homes, freeing them from high inflation, giving them access to credit. Inflation was squeezed out of the system and interest rates, apart from a short blip in the late 1980's, went steadily down. Her reduction of taxation rates made it worthwhile to save, which impacts the economy by giving governments access to additional funds.
It's also a myth to say she "destroyed" manufacturing industry. The truth is that it was already declining before she came to power. Between 1970 and 1979, its share of GDP declined by just under 2%. Between 1979 and 1990, the rate of decline actually slowed so that its share of GDP went down by 1.5%.
Now I can't stop you thinking that she was (in your arrogant words that leave no room for argument) "a vile woman" but I can point out that not everyone shares that opinion.
There is nothing arrogant in my opinion of Thatcher - it appears to be shared by thousands of others throughout the country - but it does leave room for argument as you have quite clearly shown.
You have chosen to take that comment completely out of its original context - which was in response to Santiago Street who quite arrogantly stated that anyone who commented they would prefer to sing Ding Dong the Witch is Dead rather than adhere to a minutes silence were "chavs and scumbags most of whom will be too young to have a grasp of the politics of the time but don't have the fibre to formulate their own opinions on this or I suspect anything". Now that IS arrogant.
For the record, I did "really live" through the mid-1970's (and earlier for that matter) and your views on our economy are a little skewed (see earlier post from Legally Blue for clarification).
I was actually better off under the Thatcher government (single and still at home with my parents) but I was not so selfish as to ignore the misery her policies heaped on those less fortunate than myself.
So you see, Santiago Street is wrong - we're not all "poorly brought up knobheads".
Gaylord du Bois
Well-Known Member
Investor confidence then.stony said:Gaylord du Bois said:I'm far from an apologist Stony. It's just an observation of mine,but do you honestly think anyone would have invested in the old game ten years previously.stony said:So Thatcher is responsible for the Premier league. I've heard her apologists come out with some shit but that takes the cake.
I personally think its a quirk/oxymoron that from of her government came the premier league out of shit heap that was English football at that time.
Do you really think any fucker would've wanted to invest in that crap?
Actually thinking about it she may have had an input. The prem was founded on greed and a desire to keep the TV money for the few at the top. So that is right up Thatchers street.
Gaylord du Bois said:Investor confidence then.stony said:Gaylord du Bois said:I'm far from an apologist Stony. It's just an observation of mine,but do you honestly think anyone would have invested in the old game ten years previously.
I personally think its a quirk/oxymoron that from of her government came the premier league out of shit heap that was English football at that time.
Do you really think any fucker would've wanted to invest in that crap?
Actually thinking about it she may have had an input. The prem was founded on greed and a desire to keep the TV money for the few at the top. So that is right up Thatchers street.
Hardly, more a case of the pigs already at the trough not wanting to share with the others. Much like the new Prem FFPR.
rodders1973
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Messages
- 498
You've got to kidding, she's done fuck all for us
Gaylord du Bois
Well-Known Member
In fairness mine was an observation not a political statement. It was something that's dawned on me during the last few days,and personally I think its a pretty fair(unbiased) assessment.stony said:Gaylord du Bois said:Investor confidence then.stony said:Actually thinking about it she may have had an input. The prem was founded on greed and a desire to keep the TV money for the few at the top. So that is right up Thatchers street.
Hardly, more a case of the pigs already at the trough not wanting to share with the others. Much like the new Prem FFPR.
And no(in case its asked) I don't think any moment of reflection is deserved by her passing.
undeniably some people have reason to be grateful for thatcher
And for every city spiv a vast number whose lives were wrecked
The usurious rents in this country are a direct result of her selling off council houses and the prevention of them being replaced by councils
the criminal behaviour of the banks are a direct result of her removing all controls, leading to the present situation, and that and crushing the unions was her plan A B and C, all done with a sneering disdain for the
carnage.
the police in general, and specifically the Met have been tainted by their collusion with her and murdoch and his poisonous headlines and outright lies. Not a trivial matter
In a small way, her supporters remind me of the rag fans when we won the league. Shocked at how much they were hated, not unpopular,
hated by so many
And for every city spiv a vast number whose lives were wrecked
The usurious rents in this country are a direct result of her selling off council houses and the prevention of them being replaced by councils
the criminal behaviour of the banks are a direct result of her removing all controls, leading to the present situation, and that and crushing the unions was her plan A B and C, all done with a sneering disdain for the
carnage.
the police in general, and specifically the Met have been tainted by their collusion with her and murdoch and his poisonous headlines and outright lies. Not a trivial matter
In a small way, her supporters remind me of the rag fans when we won the league. Shocked at how much they were hated, not unpopular,
hated by so many
Being from the welsh valleys and living through the seventies I not only understood but realised the harm and damage that she has inflicted on communities, society and the country in General I shall not observe the minutes silence, if it suposed to happen you will find me in the bar having a conversation.
The borrowing, greed culture and lack of care and compassion we see all around us now and which ultimately has cused the massive recession we are are in are what she pushed for. She was a bully, you only need to listen to her minnions to find that out - disagree with her and you were History.
She is closest I have ever come to hating someone without actually hating them in my lifetime - Hate is a very strong emotion and is reserved for people like Shipman, West, Huntley and all the other evil wrong doers.
The borrowing, greed culture and lack of care and compassion we see all around us now and which ultimately has cused the massive recession we are are in are what she pushed for. She was a bully, you only need to listen to her minnions to find that out - disagree with her and you were History.
She is closest I have ever come to hating someone without actually hating them in my lifetime - Hate is a very strong emotion and is reserved for people like Shipman, West, Huntley and all the other evil wrong doers.
BigJoe#1 said:Being from the welsh valleys and living through the seventies I not only understood but realised the harm and damage that she has inflicted on communities, society and the country in General I shall not observe the minutes silence, if it suposed to happen you will find me in the bar having a conversation.
The borrowing, greed culture and lack of care and compassion we see all around us now and which ultimately has cused the massive recession we are are in are what she pushed for. She was a bully, you only need to listen to her minnions to find that out - disagree with her and you were History.
She is closest I have ever come to hating someone without actually hating them in my lifetime - Hate is a very strong emotion and is reserved for people like Shipman, West, Huntley and all the other evil wrong doers.
Good post mate
The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 24,095
<a class="postlink" href="http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/margaret-thatcher-bad-for-britain-627184" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/margaret-that ... ain-627184</a>
Ian Jones looks back at Margaret Thatcher's tenure as prime minister, arguing she was bad for Britain and that her policies continue to influence the country today.
When Margaret Thatcher left Downing Street for the last time as prime minister in November 1990, she told the press: "We're very happy that we leave the United Kingdom in a very, very much better state than when we came here 11-and-a-half years ago."
Judged against certain criteria, she had a point. Few enjoy paying tax: her time in No 10 saw the basic rate fall from 33p to 25p and the top rate plunge from 83p to 40p. Everybody enjoys more disposable income: during her premiership, the average salary rose from £5,427 to £15,252. She also oversaw a decline in the annual number of working days lost in strikes from 29.5m to 1.9m.
Dig beneath the surface of these statistics, however, and a different picture emerges. In order to achieve constructive changes, Mrs Thatcher subjected Britain to a sequence of destructive upheavals. Her cure for the UK’s ills was attractive enough for a portion of its population to vote her into office three times, but the medicine was so objectionable she never received majority support.
In short, the apparatus she used to achieve her goals harmed just as many - if not more - than they helped. This was because her policies tended to involve short-term pain for many, but long-term gain for only a few.
Inflation doubled
Rather than stimulating the economy through investment and tax cuts, she tried to control the amount of money in circulation. Mrs Thatcher thought this would reduce inflation from its 1979 level of 10.3%. It didn't. Inflation doubled within a year and only fell to present day levels of 2-3% in 1986.
By this point, the damage had been done. To get to such a low level, indirect taxes had been hiked (VAT rose from 8% to 15%), as had interest rates (topping 17%). Subsidies for industry were reduced. The result was a massive rise in unemployment from 1.4m in 1979 to 3.5m by 1982, or one in eight people out of work. "I knew that when you change from one set of policies to another, the transition is very difficult," Mrs Thatcher later reflected, "but benefits would come in the longer run."
A disunited kingdom
Benefits did come, but not for everyone. Long-term unemployment blighted an entire generation in Northern Ireland (where 20% of people were left out of work), Scotland and the north-east and north-west of England (16%). Supporters insisted work was there to be found; critics argued it was unreasonable to expect people to leave homes and families to take a job 100 miles away.
A disunited kingdom emerged, as some parts of the country flourished while others faltered. Industry declined in the north; new sectors such as financial services boomed in the south. Mrs Thatcher went further, advocating both economic and moral belligerence. There was "no such thing as society, there are individual men and women and there are families." People should look to their own and not rely on the government for help.
This crystallised into her observation that the only reason the Good Samaritan did any good was "because he had money". Fine: everyone wants money and some made a lot during the Thatcher years, but what if you happened to live in a place where you couldn't earn any?
Selective prosperity
The prosperity Mrs Thatcher brought to Britain was selective, antagonistic and temporary. She did indeed leave Britain "very, very much better", but only for some. She also left it in recession, with unemployment, inflation and interest rates rising.
Above all, not only was she bad for the country during her premiership, she continues to be bad for the country today. The causes of the present slump - unrestricted credit, deregulation and too much financial speculation - all date back to the 1980s. No successive government dared reverse these decisions: a blessing to her legacy, but a curse we must now all share.
Ian Jones looks back at Margaret Thatcher's tenure as prime minister, arguing she was bad for Britain and that her policies continue to influence the country today.
When Margaret Thatcher left Downing Street for the last time as prime minister in November 1990, she told the press: "We're very happy that we leave the United Kingdom in a very, very much better state than when we came here 11-and-a-half years ago."
Judged against certain criteria, she had a point. Few enjoy paying tax: her time in No 10 saw the basic rate fall from 33p to 25p and the top rate plunge from 83p to 40p. Everybody enjoys more disposable income: during her premiership, the average salary rose from £5,427 to £15,252. She also oversaw a decline in the annual number of working days lost in strikes from 29.5m to 1.9m.
Dig beneath the surface of these statistics, however, and a different picture emerges. In order to achieve constructive changes, Mrs Thatcher subjected Britain to a sequence of destructive upheavals. Her cure for the UK’s ills was attractive enough for a portion of its population to vote her into office three times, but the medicine was so objectionable she never received majority support.
In short, the apparatus she used to achieve her goals harmed just as many - if not more - than they helped. This was because her policies tended to involve short-term pain for many, but long-term gain for only a few.
Inflation doubled
Rather than stimulating the economy through investment and tax cuts, she tried to control the amount of money in circulation. Mrs Thatcher thought this would reduce inflation from its 1979 level of 10.3%. It didn't. Inflation doubled within a year and only fell to present day levels of 2-3% in 1986.
By this point, the damage had been done. To get to such a low level, indirect taxes had been hiked (VAT rose from 8% to 15%), as had interest rates (topping 17%). Subsidies for industry were reduced. The result was a massive rise in unemployment from 1.4m in 1979 to 3.5m by 1982, or one in eight people out of work. "I knew that when you change from one set of policies to another, the transition is very difficult," Mrs Thatcher later reflected, "but benefits would come in the longer run."
A disunited kingdom
Benefits did come, but not for everyone. Long-term unemployment blighted an entire generation in Northern Ireland (where 20% of people were left out of work), Scotland and the north-east and north-west of England (16%). Supporters insisted work was there to be found; critics argued it was unreasonable to expect people to leave homes and families to take a job 100 miles away.
A disunited kingdom emerged, as some parts of the country flourished while others faltered. Industry declined in the north; new sectors such as financial services boomed in the south. Mrs Thatcher went further, advocating both economic and moral belligerence. There was "no such thing as society, there are individual men and women and there are families." People should look to their own and not rely on the government for help.
This crystallised into her observation that the only reason the Good Samaritan did any good was "because he had money". Fine: everyone wants money and some made a lot during the Thatcher years, but what if you happened to live in a place where you couldn't earn any?
Selective prosperity
The prosperity Mrs Thatcher brought to Britain was selective, antagonistic and temporary. She did indeed leave Britain "very, very much better", but only for some. She also left it in recession, with unemployment, inflation and interest rates rising.
Above all, not only was she bad for the country during her premiership, she continues to be bad for the country today. The causes of the present slump - unrestricted credit, deregulation and too much financial speculation - all date back to the 1980s. No successive government dared reverse these decisions: a blessing to her legacy, but a curse we must now all share.