Thatcher dead?

[TightEnd]

I don't agree with all below but found this online, have some people been waiting for her death?

Margaret Thatcher was the most divisive and polarising politic leader of the last century. This is an incomplete list of why many of us fall on the side that does not regard her with anything other than odium…

1. She supported the retention of capital punishment
2. She destroyed the country's manufacturing industry
3. She voted against the relaxation of divorce laws
4. She abolished free milk for schoolchildren ("Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher")
5. She supported more freedom for business (and look how that turned out)
6. She gained support from the National Front in the 1979 election by pandering to the fears of immigration
7. She gerrymandered local authorities by forcing through council house sales, at the same time preventing councils from spending the money they got for selling houses on building new houses (spending on social housing dropped by 67% in her premiership)
8. She was responsible for 3.6 million unemployed - the highest figure and the highest proportion of the workforce in history and three times the previous government. Massaging of the figures means that the figure was closer to 5 million
9. She ignored intelligence about Argentinian preparations for the invasion of the Falkland Islands and scrapped the only Royal Navy presence in the islands
10. The poll tax
11. She presided over the closure of 150 coal mines; we are now crippled by the cost of energy, having to import expensive coal from abroad
12. She compared her "fight" against the miners to the Falklands War
13. She privatised state monopolies and created the corporate greed culture that we've been railing against for the last 5 years
14. She introduced the gradual privatisation of the NHS
15. She introduced financial deregulation in a way that turned city institutions into avaricious money pits
16. She pioneered the unfailing adoration and unquestioning support of the USA
17. She allowed the US to place nuclear missiles on UK soil, under US control
18. Section 28
19. She opposed anti-apartheid sanctions against South Africa and described Nelson Mandela as "that grubby little terrorist"
20. She support the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and sent the SAS to train their soldiers
21. She allowed the US to bomb Libya in 1986, against the wishes of more than 2/3 of the population
22. She opposed the reunification of Germany
23. She invented Quangos
24. She increased VAT from 8% to 17.5%
25. She had the lowest approval rating of any post-war Prime Minister
26. Her post-PM job? Consultant to Philip Morris tobacco at $250,000 a year, plus $50,000 per speech
27. The Al Yamamah contract
28. She opposed the indictment of Chile's General Pinochet
29. Social unrest under her leadership was higher than at any time since the General Strike
30. She presided over interest rates increasing to 15%
31. BSE
32. She presided over 2 million manufacturing job losses in the 79-81 recession
33. She opposed the inclusion of Eire in the Northern Ireland peace process
34. She supported sanctions-busting arms deals with South Africa
35. Cecil Parkinson, Alan Clark, David Mellor, Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitkin
36. Crime rates doubled under Thatcher
37. Black Wednesday – Britain withdraws from the ERM and the pound is devalued. Cost to Britain - £3.5 billion; profit for George Soros - £1 billion
38. Poverty doubled while she opposed a minimum wage
39. She privatised public services, claiming at the time it would increase public ownership. Most are now owned either by foreign governments (EDF) or major investment houses. The profits don’t now accrue to the taxpayer, but to foreign or institutional shareholders.
40. She cut 75% of funding to museums, galleries and other sources of education
41. In the Thatcher years the top 10% of earners received almost 50% of the tax remissions
42. 21.9% inflation

Most people recognise the massive changes that evolved during the 1980s. However, to ascribe the positive changes to one person, as though they never would have happened in her absence, is laughable.

christ, I wish I had the time

4 I have addressed above

11 Wilson closed more mines than Thatcher

27 The Cold War doesn't end when it does without Thatcher


As bobby1 keeps trying to tell you, its all so one-sided from your perspective, the reality is much more complicated on almost all off these issues

[The Camel]

But she did rewrite political history Acid, Thatcherism isn't just a buzz word is it.

Back to my point about looking at the bad side of things, you mentioned unemployment but didn't mention lowering inflation.

You mention selling off council houses and not replacing them but don't accentuate the people that bought their house very cheaply and sold it on later to give them selves a nest egg/money to invest/spend. You give an example of private landlords, it's just looking at one side of the happenings, all the down side. Houses to buy became available down the line because people that had been allowed to buy their council homes could eventually sell.

Of those things tho breaking down the unions and privatisation of companies that improved the level to the consumers were a big success, without doing those things the economy would have continued to stand still. You admit that BG was a bit of a mess, so were lots of other firms then, she took it on to modernise them. These days you can get any amount of phone providers and it's pretty cheap, that's a legacy of the BT privatisation and a free market that was encouraged then. The example of it going bad is probably the rail service which was a shambles when privatised and hasn't really recovered but note that privatisation took place in 1993 when she was no longer in charge.

Fuk me I try balance it out and get shot down, the only thing you have conceded on this thread is it helped you and your family prosper. I will save my responses for elsewhere. Someone who believes people being able to buy their council houses cheap to sell on at a profit later is a good thing needs serious help.

I was lucky enough to grow up in a reasonably affluent area.

However there was a row of about 20 council houses nearby.

These were all sold off to the tenants, and without exception all were resold at a massive profit within a handful of years.

Hence if you were lucky enough to live in a council house in Ascot in 1979 you would have made a massive (over 100% I believe) profit, if you were homeless and on a waiting list you were fucked.

A roulette society.

[the sicilian]

But she did rewrite political history Acid, Thatcherism isn't just a buzz word is it.

Back to my point about looking at the bad side of things, you mentioned unemployment but didn't mention lowering inflation.

You mention selling off council houses and not replacing them but don't accentuate the people that bought their house very cheaply and sold it on later to give them selves a nest egg/money to invest/spend. You give an example of private landlords, it's just looking at one side of the happenings, all the down side. Houses to buy became available down the line because people that had been allowed to buy their council homes could eventually sell.

Of those things tho breaking down the unions and privatisation of companies that improved the level to the consumers were a big success, without doing those things the economy would have continued to stand still. You admit that BG was a bit of a mess, so were lots of other firms then, she took it on to modernise them. These days you can get any amount of phone providers and it's pretty cheap, that's a legacy of the BT privatisation and a free market that was encouraged then. The example of it going bad is probably the rail service which was a shambles when privatised and hasn't really recovered but note that privatisation took place in 1993 when she was no longer in charge.

Watching the various Obituaries on TV last night there was a common theme running thru them in that whenever there was something to be handled she took notice of the experts in that field. It might not be a coincidence that one of the biggest privatisation flops took place soon after she had left office.

You have just kind of shrugged your shoulder at the end and dismissed turning around the economy and eradicating business that were well out of date but if it was that easy then I guess the last two Govt's would have sorted similar problems out easily but they haven't mate.

When she went it was time to go and the Poll Tax was a horrid idea but give me someone that does a lot of good things and some bad things than the current lot who think getting spin doctors to give them quotes full of air or getting their picture taking buying pasties in Greggs is governing.

I remember a story years ago tho when the Tories were trying to appear more in touch with local communities and sent some of the parties heavierweights to various towns and cities around the country. In one of them, with photographers in full flow they wanted to capture one particular Tory in a fish n chip shop photographing him eating fish n chips with the locals. With it all in place he went to the counter and in is lovely posh voice said
'Could I have fish n chips please'
'anything else sir'
' err yes could you put me some of that Guacamole on too' he said pointing at the mushy peas.

Job not done.

Inflation doesn't really matter. As long as income is going up as fast as inflation the only people who suffer by a high inflation rate are those with massive savings.

Unemployment nearly doubled. Enough said.

Selling off council houses was a national disgrace. The whole point of council housing is to provide for people who can't afford to buy. I CBA to look at homeless statistics in the UK, but I would bet heaps it has multiplied massively since 1979.

Privatisation was a massive disaster. Selling the national treasures at a fraction of their true price.

Every time my train is cancelled, my electricity bill goes up by double the inflation rate or my BT internet service goes down, I curse Margaret Thatcher.

Basically if you were rich, young and well educated Thatcher was great for you.

But if you were poor, ill, disabled, gay, poorly educated, a student, a trade union member or worked in the public sector it was 10 years of misery.

just lol... i was poor but was inspired to get off my arse and make something of myself and have a chance of owning my own homerather than sit there whining how hard done by i was as i held out my hand... every time i have a meeting in london i marvel and the train service because i used to commute into liverpool street when it was a nationalised service and believe me you really would have something to moan about  BT nationalised was a joke beyond proportion..all nationalised industries were staffed by lazy inefficent idiots more worried about striking or nipping off at 4pm because it didnt matter as they would never be sacked

[bobby1]

But she did rewrite political history Acid, Thatcherism isn't just a buzz word is it.

Back to my point about looking at the bad side of things, you mentioned unemployment but didn't mention lowering inflation.

You mention selling off council houses and not replacing them but don't accentuate the people that bought their house very cheaply and sold it on later to give them selves a nest egg/money to invest/spend. You give an example of private landlords, it's just looking at one side of the happenings, all the down side. Houses to buy became available down the line because people that had been allowed to buy their council homes could eventually sell.

Of those things tho breaking down the unions and privatisation of companies that improved the level to the consumers were a big success, without doing those things the economy would have continued to stand still. You admit that BG was a bit of a mess, so were lots of other firms then, she took it on to modernise them. These days you can get any amount of phone providers and it's pretty cheap, that's a legacy of the BT privatisation and a free market that was encouraged then. The example of it going bad is probably the rail service which was a shambles when privatised and hasn't really recovered but note that privatisation took place in 1993 when she was no longer in charge.

Fuk me I try balance it out and get shot down, the only thing you have conceded on this thread is it helped you and your family prosper. I will save my responses for elsewhere. Someone who believes people being able to buy their council houses cheap to sell on at a profit later is a good thing needs serious help.

sorry mate but it just really shows you aren't reading all the post. In no way did my family prosper in the Thatcher years. My dad had to sell the house and downsize when his trade became obsolete, he set up a company, running it out of our garage and spent hour on hour in there in enough layers to keep an Eskimo warm. His fingers still look like a blind cobblers to this day and his back is still bad.

But what he did when he found his job was now not needed is he moaned about it and found a way to get by. Again I don't want to rake up the miners that lost jobs but I lived in a place that had a pit close, some of the guys that worked as miners found themselves out of work but some got decent pay offs. They still went to pickets and still did their best to fight for the mining cause but what I remember the most about them is their skin colour gradually changed from grey to normal again. They coughed a lot less. They took their families on holidays with the pay off and some found other jobs or set up businesses with the money. They moved on.

Obviously this wasn't possible for other people and there were undoubtedly families that suffered a lot but can we hand on heart say that mining coal at that stage in the quantities we were was needed then or going forward. It was a trade that  unfortunately became obsolete, the same as my fathers trade did.

[MANTIS01]

Lefties always rattle on about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Their answer to any problem is just keep taxing the rich and giving to the poor like some kinda modern day robin hood coup.

One thing money gives you is mobility. So if the government kept bashing up the rich for taxes they will just go to the airport and fck off to Bermuda or Switzerland or wherever. A policy that drives away the entrepreneurs, the business starters, the employers is a very bad policy. If the rich are prevented from investing their money and getting richer they will just bog off to another more competitive country. What will be left is an island of poor people wandering around like walkers from TWD looking for handouts and jobs. So this hatred of the rich puzzles me. Thatcher tried to attract wealth to our country which she did very successfully. This provides the means of a welfare state so people have the basic means to survive. That makes us all very rich indeed because at this moment an advert flashes up on the telly showing kids in Africa starving to death. People talk about “hardship” in this county and I think what bollocks, we don’t know how lucky we are.

Next thing is this me me me culture bashing. Again in theory this thinking of others first is a real nice beardy cardigan-wearing notion but it doesn’t stack up in the real world. In life you will think of yourself and your family first and foremost end of. This will never change as long as human beings are human beings.

[david3103]

The legacy argument, that our current economic and social ills are somehow all inextricably linked to decisions made in the years 1979-1990 is obviously flawed.
The decisions made in that period were influenced by prior choices and there is no single act that occurred in that 11yrs that can be viewed as a stand alone decision with consequences solely due to that act.
Selling Council Houses, Privatising Gas and Telecomms created a country where home and share ownership stopped being the preserve of the traditional upper and middle class. Preventing local councils replenishing the stock of social housing was perhaps an error but the overall impact was to share the wealth of the nation.

Taking on the Trades Unions was a necessary venture and people like Scargill (the leader of an unballoted strike) needed to be brought to understand that they had overdone their work to 'protect' their members and were in fact now putting their jobs at risk with their demands.

Freeing up the financial markets and creating the environment that brought the World's banks to London rarely gets mentioned, but that happened under her watch and if you want to point to consequences then this may just be where your focus should be. Our most recent problems have, ultimately, stemmed from the creation of 'casino' banking.

So RIP Margaret Thatcher - you were far from perfect, but at least, inlike Bliar, you believed in what you were doing. And at least, unlike Brown, or Cameron/Clegg, you had principles, not focus groups, to guide you.

[doubleup]

Full employment >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Low inflation.

no Keith that is not correct imo

Unless wages rise faster than inflation, spending power is lower as time goes on and living standards drop for everyone

Meanwhile, anyone relying on savings (pensioners etc) get decimated

Full Employment is not a panacea for an economy's ills unless inflation is far lower than wage growth

And more than that it is not people with "massive savings" who get affected.  It hits the people with a little bit put by the most, as the rich usually invest in real assets rather than have cash savings.

Not that Thatcher's record was that great on inflation anyway.

[kinboshi]

The legacy argument, that our current economic and social ills are somehow all inextricably linked to decisions made in the years 1979-1990 is obviously flawed.
The decisions made in that period were influenced by prior choices and there is no single act that occurred in that 11yrs that can be viewed as a stand alone decision with consequences solely due to that act.
Selling Council Houses, Privatising Gas and Telecomms created a country where home and share ownership stopped being the preserve of the traditional upper and middle class. Preventing local councils replenishing the stock of social housing was perhaps an error but the overall impact was to share the wealth of the nation.

Taking on the Trades Unions was a necessary venture and people like Scargill (the leader of an unballoted strike) needed to be brought to understand that they had overdone their work to 'protect' their members and were in fact now putting their jobs at risk with their demands.

Freeing up the financial markets and creating the environment that brought the World's banks to London rarely gets mentioned, but that happened under her watch and if you want to point to consequences then this may just be where your focus should be. Our most recent problems have, ultimately, stemmed from the creation of 'casino' banking.

So RIP Margaret Thatcher - you were far from perfect, but at least, inlike Bliar, you believed in what you were doing. And at least, unlike Brown, or Cameron/Clegg, you had principles, not focus groups, to guide you.

First line of your post.  The deregulation of the financial markets was fundamentally flawed - the impact still being felt now.

Privatisation has seen most of the ownership of our utilities being held overseas.  Not sure how that makes us a richer nation? 

Share the wealth of the nation?  There were more people in 'poverty' under Thatcher than previously.  The gap between the haves and have-nots grew, and the balance of wealth was moved massively to the top 5%.

Yes, the trade unions had too strong a hold that was crippling many industries.  Illegal clamp-downs on strikers and the massive swing to the complete lack of union power now was a step too far.

Thatcher was a had very few scruples, as I've highlighted with her being 'in bed' with brutal dictators across the world (and using UK tax-payers' money to do this).  Blair was wrong with his war on Iraq, but I'd say that Thatcher was even more wrong with her friendship and policy of supporting Saddam and his genocidal dictatorship.  But at least she stuck to her 'principles', so we should eulogise over her being a great leader.

[doubleup]

Lefties always rattle on about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Their answer to any problem is just keep taxing the rich and giving to the poor like some kinda modern day robin hood coup.

One thing money gives you is mobility. So if the government kept bashing up the rich for taxes they will just go to the airport and fck off to Bermuda or Switzerland or wherever. A policy that drives away the entrepreneurs, the business starters, the employers is a very bad policy. If the rich are prevented from investing their money and getting richer they will just bog off to another more competitive country. What will be left is an island of poor people wandering around like walkers from TWD looking for handouts and jobs. So this hatred of the rich puzzles me. Thatcher tried to attract wealth to our country which she did very successfully. This provides the means of a welfare state so people have the basic means to survive. That makes us all very rich indeed because at this moment an advert flashes up on the telly showing kids in Africa starving to death. People talk about “hardship” in this county and I think what bollocks, we don’t know how lucky we are.

Next thing is this me me me culture bashing. Again in theory this thinking of others first is a real nice beardy cardigan-wearing notion but it doesn’t stack up in the real world. In life you will think of yourself and your family first and foremost end of. This will never change as long as human beings are human beings.

Level one thinking at its best.

You think that the modern social democrat doesn't understand human nature and markets?  

You know that it is only social cohesion and fear of punishment that stops someone marching into your house and destroying everything you have?  

[Simon Galloway]

Ofc inflation matters.  Most of the economic policy in the last 30+ years has been centred on controlling inflation as the number one priority.

In the mid 70s, I think inflation was heading over 20%.  3 or 4 years of that and your spending power has about halved.  That's lots of income increases that you need.  Which is great if your income doubles every 3 or 4 years, but if you are retired/retiring... you are screwed.  If you have a mortgage, you are similarly screwed.  If you rent, well someone pays the mortgage, so your rent goes up.  Savings become increasingly pointless.

And we haven't even touched on the effects of no longer being able to competitively trade internationally.

Full employment >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Low inflation.

Savings should be essentially pointless, spare money should be used to stimulate the economy not hoarded up "for a rainy day".

Low inflation (under control) will allow you to build an economic base from which you can achieve full employment in the long run.  In other words, 3M on the rock'n'roll was unpleasant, but a short term measure.  

If you started with full employment and high inflation, you'd be in the shit in no time.  I don't think there is a credible economist out there that would disagree.

[david3103]

The legacy argument, that our current economic and social ills are somehow all inextricably linked to decisions made in the years 1979-1990 is obviously flawed.
The decisions made in that period were influenced by prior choices and there is no single act that occurred in that 11yrs that can be viewed as a stand alone decision with consequences solely due to that act.
Selling Council Houses, Privatising Gas and Telecomms created a country where home and share ownership stopped being the preserve of the traditional upper and middle class. Preventing local councils replenishing the stock of social housing was perhaps an error but the overall impact was to share the wealth of the nation.

Taking on the Trades Unions was a necessary venture and people like Scargill (the leader of an unballoted strike) needed to be brought to understand that they had overdone their work to 'protect' their members and were in fact now putting their jobs at risk with their demands.

Freeing up the financial markets and creating the environment that brought the World's banks to London rarely gets mentioned, but that happened under her watch and if you want to point to consequences then this may just be where your focus should be. Our most recent problems have, ultimately, stemmed from the creation of 'casino' banking.

So RIP Margaret Thatcher - you were far from perfect, but at least, inlike Bliar, you believed in what you were doing. And at least, unlike Brown, or Cameron/Clegg, you had principles, not focus groups, to guide you.

First line of your post.  The deregulation of the financial markets was fundamentally flawed - the impact still being felt now.

Privatisation has seen most of the ownership of our utilities being held overseas.  Not sure how that makes us a richer nation? 

Share the wealth of the nation?  There were more people in 'poverty' under Thatcher than previously.  The gap between the haves and have-nots grew, and the balance of wealth was moved massively to the top 5%.

Yes, the trade unions had too strong a hold that was crippling many industries.  Illegal clamp-downs on strikers and the massive swing to the complete lack of union power now was a step too far.

Thatcher was a had very few scruples, as I've highlighted with her being 'in bed' with brutal dictators across the world (and using UK tax-payers' money to do this).  Blair was wrong with his war on Iraq, but I'd say that Thatcher was even more wrong with her friendship and policy of supporting Saddam and his genocidal dictatorship.  But at least she stuck to her 'principles', so we should eulogise over her being a great leader.

I don't believe I eulogised her, and I was aware of the flaw in the post when I included the final point about the financial markets. But the key decisions that allowed the foreign ownership of our utilities were taken post-Thatcher; the key decisions which allowed us to create a credit-fuelled  boom period and the subsequent collapse of the banks were taken post-Thatcher and the surrender to the powers of Brussels and Strasbourg took place post-Thatcher. Just as every decision she took was made post-Heath/Wilson et al

[bobAlike]

I am declaring myself out of this argument as nothing on this thread has convinced me that I should chnage my views. I thought I was narrow minded but there are a few in this thread who take the biscuit.

[kinboshi]

The legacy argument, that our current economic and social ills are somehow all inextricably linked to decisions made in the years 1979-1990 is obviously flawed.
The decisions made in that period were influenced by prior choices and there is no single act that occurred in that 11yrs that can be viewed as a stand alone decision with consequences solely due to that act.
Selling Council Houses, Privatising Gas and Telecomms created a country where home and share ownership stopped being the preserve of the traditional upper and middle class. Preventing local councils replenishing the stock of social housing was perhaps an error but the overall impact was to share the wealth of the nation.

Taking on the Trades Unions was a necessary venture and people like Scargill (the leader of an unballoted strike) needed to be brought to understand that they had overdone their work to 'protect' their members and were in fact now putting their jobs at risk with their demands.

Freeing up the financial markets and creating the environment that brought the World's banks to London rarely gets mentioned, but that happened under her watch and if you want to point to consequences then this may just be where your focus should be. Our most recent problems have, ultimately, stemmed from the creation of 'casino' banking.

So RIP Margaret Thatcher - you were far from perfect, but at least, inlike Bliar, you believed in what you were doing. And at least, unlike Brown, or Cameron/Clegg, you had principles, not focus groups, to guide you.

First line of your post.  The deregulation of the financial markets was fundamentally flawed - the impact still being felt now.

Privatisation has seen most of the ownership of our utilities being held overseas.  Not sure how that makes us a richer nation? 

Share the wealth of the nation?  There were more people in 'poverty' under Thatcher than previously.  The gap between the haves and have-nots grew, and the balance of wealth was moved massively to the top 5%.

Yes, the trade unions had too strong a hold that was crippling many industries.  Illegal clamp-downs on strikers and the massive swing to the complete lack of union power now was a step too far.

Thatcher was a had very few scruples, as I've highlighted with her being 'in bed' with brutal dictators across the world (and using UK tax-payers' money to do this).  Blair was wrong with his war on Iraq, but I'd say that Thatcher was even more wrong with her friendship and policy of supporting Saddam and his genocidal dictatorship.  But at least she stuck to her 'principles', so we should eulogise over her being a great leader.

I don't believe I eulogised her, and I was aware of the flaw in the post when I included the final point about the financial markets. But the key decisions that allowed the foreign ownership of our utilities were taken post-Thatcher; the key decisions which allowed us to create a credit-fuelled  boom period and the subsequent collapse of the banks were taken post-Thatcher and the surrender to the powers of Brussels and Strasbourg took place post-Thatcher. Just as every decision she took was made post-Heath/Wilson et al

Dave, wasn't saying you were eulogising her - I meant in general, many going on about her being a great leader, etc.

I do disagree, however, that credit-fuelled boom-bust wasn't a direct consequence of the deregulation of the financial industry, and that the privatisation of utilities was in the interest of the general population (it was done for the benefit of the few rather than the many).  But I think that's where we have fundamental differences in our political leanings and that goes beyond the debate about Thatcher(ism).

[Doobs]

Undoubtably, Mrs Thatcher made many changes that made a positive difference to the country but lowering inflation wasn't one of them.  When she took over it was about 10%, when she left power it was about 10%.  Major and Blair lowered inflation by more. 

What has finally controlled inflation may not be Thatcher, Blair, Major or the independent central bank.  It may just be that the European glory days are mostly behind us, and we are in for many years of slow growth and low inflation because of this.   

Leave you all too it.

[Woodsey]

Vermin...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9980814/Police-injured-and-arrests-made-as-hundreds-celebrated-death-of-Margaret-Thatcher.html