Margaret Thatcher Thread - Read the first post before posting

[Fareast 10]

The biggest factor in the defeat of the miners was the miners themselves.

 

About a third of them refused to go on strike in support of their ' brothers '........some great comradeship there !!

 

Daft, arrogant Arthur organised the strike when coal reserves were at their highest.

 

A.S. also refused to call a national ballot...........great show of confidence there !

 

The union that controlled the Winders [ ?......the men operating the pit cages ? ] could have brought the whole mining industry to a halt if they had gone on strike........but they didn 't.

 

It didn 't need Mrs. T. to give Arthur a right-hander--------Olive Oil or Shirley Temple could have walked over such a shambles.

[fishy_taste 10]

Which is why I included the caveat - as far as possible. I think it remains obvious that she did not go as far as possible to provide a solution that catered for all.

 

 

 

At no point have I suggested that the mining industry did not require change. However, you are talking about the cost of it rather than the value of it.

 

However, if you want to discuss it in purely financial terms, my point was that communities were cut adrift and warehoused on costly benefits. A workforce, a powerful resource in itself, were left to rot. Revenues paid to overseas coal production were not recycled back into the UK economy as the miners had, neither were the profits made by pit privatisation in the UK. All of that constitues a waste of taxpayers money and resources. Do not pretend the financial picture is clear.

 

More importantly, however, is the moral obligation to serve the people which Thatcherism so obviously transgressed. It was not in the UK's best interests to wash it's hands of entire villages, towns and cities across the industiral north. There was extremely scant provision made for those cast aside, taxpayers and voters, to adjust to the new model. If you are going to foster sweeping change then do what you can to take the people with you. Resentment at the loss of industry is no excuse to remove the livelihoods of millions and replace it with nothing.

 

 

 

Tell you what, let's not - you made the original assertion and therefore it is incumbent upon you to substantiate it.

 

OK, let's start by you reading the post that you have included in your response.

 

That's a start.

 

You're turn....

[skinz 10]

Because whatever she was, she was a conviction politician, she always did what she set out to do, unlike the coalition, who have made more U turns than a boomerang.

 

 

What's the use of having a government if you're not going to heed the advice of said government in favour of being a conviction politician with a "set out to do" mantra? U-turns are usually the result of pressure from your peers, public or both. She was voted in as head of a democratic state, not as dictator. Her downfall was subject to the inability to heed warnings due to her own self importance. Having "balls" is knowing when you're wrong and acting on it.

[MrSmith 10]

 

However, if you want to discuss it in purely financial terms, my point was that communities were cut adrift and warehoused on costly benefits. A workforce, a powerful resource in itself, were left to rot.

 

That is simply not true; the ones that have spent the last 29 years rotting, chose to rot. Many more adapted and found suitable employment.

[staninoodle 176]

Another of the thatcher governments legacies that we still pay for today,was the fiasco of selling council houses.

The money from sales was meant to go back into building decent modern homes.

In actual fact,that money was used to fund tax cuts to the rich and pay for the spiraling cost of benefit,again which dogs us today.

The knock on is we have a chronic shortage of affordable social housing,and house prices rocketed,and that will be another policy that generations after mine will struggle to put right.

[mikem8634 10]

OK, let's start by you reading the post that you have included in your response.

 

That's a start.

 

You're turn....

 

I have, thanks, and provided a response that took into account it's relevance to the post it in turn, quoted.

 

I am still waiting for you to do what you have claimed below - that was the start.

 

When you analyse, from an objective point of view (rather than an emotive, die-hard socialist/neo-communist perspective) and list the policies her govt's instigated that had a positive effect on the lives of many over a longer period of time, I get the feeling it will be a little like The Life of Brian and the 'what did the Roman's ever do for us'...!

[MrSmith 10]

Another of the thatcher governments legacies that we still pay for today,was the fiasco of selling council houses.

The money from sales was meant to go back into building decent modern homes.

In actual fact,that money was used to fund tax cuts to the rich and pay for the spiraling cost of benefit,again which dogs us today.

The knock on is we have a chronic shortage of affordable social housing,and house prices rocketed,and that will be another policy that generations after mine will struggle to put right.

 

Could you please explain how selling a council house could possibly result in house price inflation?

.

[fishy_taste 10]

What's the use of having a government if you're not going to heed the advice of said government in favour of being a conviction politician with a "set out to do" mantra? U-turns are usually the result of pressure from your peers, public or both. She was voted in as head of a democratic state, not as dictator. Her downfall was subject to the inability to heed warnings due to her own self importance. Having "balls" is knowing when you're wrong and acting on it.

 

A strong govt is one that looks at a longer term picture and sticks the course (of what they believe/hope will turn out to be the correct course). However, this will only be known for certain a number of years down the line.

 

A weak govt is one that reacts to public opnion and peer pressure (from MP's more worried about their seat and the next election) and flips and flops from one short-term, popularist measure to another.

 

Sadly, most MP's have one and half eye's on the next election and their likely re-election. And most of the electorate don't really understand the long term nature of many govt policies.

 

Changes to tax or duty now take at least 18 months to have an impact on the economy. The ripple effect.

 

Strong govt's are not driven by emotions.

[mikem8634 10]

A strong govt is one that looks at a longer term picture and sticks the course (of what they believe/hope will turn out to be the correct course). However, this will only be known for certain a number of years down the line.

 

A weak govt is one that reacts to public opnion and peer pressure (from MP's more worried about their seat and the next election) and flips and flops from one short-term, popularist measure to another.

 

Sadly, most MP's have one and half eye's on the next election and their likely re-election. And most of the electorate don't really understand the long term nature of many govt policies.

 

Changes to tax or duty now take at least 18 months to have an impact on the economy. The ripple effect.

 

Strong govt's are not driven by emotions.

 

Is a strong government inherently a good one?

 

Is recongnizing a mistake and changing course not considered to be a positive?

[staninoodle 176]

Could you please explain how selling a council house could possibly result in house price inflation?

.

 

Pretty simple....if theres a large NEED and a SMALL supply,gradually the price of whatever you sell inflates

[altus 541]

I don't agree to houses that were bought being used to provide an income but in the last resort it is up to the owner what they do.

If we are discussing the morality of selling council properties at a discount I'd argue that what the owners subsequently do with them is relevant.

There needs to be a reasonable reduction in housing benefit to force down the rent landlords charge linked to acceptable levels of rent charged.

That would be difficult with the current shortage in housing. Landlords would just rent to people who could afford to pay more and those who needed housing benefit would be left homeless.

I asked about the lack of an house building agenda by any party as I think it is the answer to why council houses were sold. As I said in an earlier post council housing requires rents to be collected, repairs undertaken, modernisation programmes etc. and all associated tasks. I believe councils were and still are glad to be relieved of these costly responsibilities.

The massive mistake was not reinvesting the money gathered from house sales into building new houses, but this was probably a part of the plan to achieve the above responsibilities and future expense.

The Conservative government that introduced the right to buy scheme ruled the proceeds of council house sales couldn't be spent on building new houses. Labour were left without having that money to reinvest and the prospect of any newly built houses being sold at a loss before there had been a chance to recover the costs under the right to buy scheme.

 

Both parties had an interest in encouraging hyperinflation in the housing market because it makes people feel[1] wealthy and happier with the government. The only real way to reduce house prices is to build more houses - council or otherwise. I can't imagine any government wanting that because falling house prices makes people feel poorer - and not just those who would be plunged into negative equity by it either.

 

 

[1] I say feel wealthy because, since people need somewhere to live, rising house prices are bad for people unless they downsize as they get old or sell up to go into an OAP's home. Anyone trading up to a more expensive property should welcome falling house prices. If you sell it before then, you may have made a profit on it but you'll need somewhere to live and a new property will be more expensive as well so you profit will be of no use. Better to have house prices remain relatively static and everybody be able to afford one.

[Lotusflower 10]

What is the quote - 'you can't please all of the people all of the time'?

 

She could not have reduced the high levels of income tax without unburdening the British tax payer from subsidising/propping up wasteful, ineptly run industries - steel, coal, gas, electricity, telecoms etc.,

 

In doing so, quickly or slowly, any die hard socialist or union member would never be pleased by those actions.

 

Even now, 20+ years after the miner's strike (where emotions still run high) the decision to close unprofitable pits remains the correct decision (though no miner or miner's relative would have it now, certainly not back then).

 

How can I say that?

 

1. Private companies, like RJB Mining etc., were invited to bid for the running of those pits. They did for some, but not for all. And few, if any, are still operating now.

 

2. Had they been profitable then or were they profitable now, they would have been re-opened. Only a select few were (see above) and virtually none are now.

 

Back then, it cost more to mine the coal than it could be sold for on the open market (I recall something being said it cost £2 to mine the coal and it could be sold for £1.)

 

Who's fault was that? The miners for strike after strike asking for more (and getting more) pay? Mis-management, a general move away from fossil energy or just general market forces? That's another debate.

 

I think of it like this - imagine you employ a cleaner and you give them £50 to clean your house and to buy cleaning equipment. You go away and when you come back, very little has been done. When questioned the cleaner said 'I didn't have enough more for the cleaning stuff'. So you give them more money and the same thing happens. So you give them more money and...

 

At what point do you say 'enough is enough, I'm not giving any more money for it to be wasted on what?'

 

That was the choice Mrs T made - she said 'enough is enough' (only, it was our money - tax payers money - being wasted).

 

---------- Post added 10-04-2013 at 13:46 ----------

 

 

Tell you what, let's turn this on it's head and you list all the policies instigated by Mrs T that did absolutely no good for the country and, in fact, completely harmed the country and population that still persist today?

 

Or, better still, list how her policies have adversely affected the society in which you live today?

 

Re my bold.

 

Please...allow me.