Margaret Thatcher Thread - Read the first post before posting

[fishy_taste]

I can happily accept that Thatcher improved the lives of those that support her legacy. That seems logical, why else would they support her?

 

The problem I have with it is that she did it at the expense of so many cities and communities.

 

I don't doubt that some changes were necessary but a truly skilled politician would have presented a solution that catered for, as far as possible, all of the people, and not simply cut vast swathes adrift without comprehensive frameworks of support to foster adaptation and reintegration into the new model.

 

If you benefitted from Thatcherism can you accept that others were decimated by it?

 

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 ----------

 

Let's see your list then and let's analyse it from an objective point of view.

 

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?

[mikem8634]

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

 

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.

 

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).

 

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 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?

 

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

Edited April 10, 2013 by mikem8634

[altus]

Please answer my complete post and not just sections of it.

I wasn't aware that it was compulsory but here's the bit I missed:

Why hasn't any government, Conservative or Labour when in power, since right to buy was introduced had large house building agendas ?

I don't know why Labour and Conservative governments haven't had a house building agenda. Perhaps you should ask a supporter of one of those parties.

 

Are you going to answer my post now? Particularly the bit about right to buy properties being let out for over four times the rent they would attract as council properties and the effect it has on the amount of housing benefit taxpayers have to pay for.

[poppet2]

What an epitaph. And you think she had balls because of this..or something else?

 

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.

[alchresearch]

Good link from the "]Daily Mash

 

 

People with no idea who Thatcher was 'ecstatic' that she's dead

THOUSANDS of people under 35 are rejoicing at the demise of a woman they once read about.

[harvey19]

I wasn't aware that it was compulsory but here's the bit I missed:

 

I don't know why Labour and Conservative governments haven't had a house building agenda. Perhaps you should ask a supporter of one of those parties.

 

Are you going to answer my post now? Particularly the bit about right to buy properties being let out for over four times the rent they would attract as council properties and the effect it has on the amount of housing benefit taxpayers have to pay for.

 

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.

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

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.

[Ms Macbeth]

I don't believe everyone either loved or loathed Margaret Thatcher. I never thought she got it all wrong, but I never thought she got it all right either. What PM did? Wilson and Heath tried to work with the trade unions, but the unions wanted more and more, pay rises of 25% weren't unknown. It was great for those protected by being in one of the big unions, but what about everyone else? Pensioners, people in small companies, and others with low incomes saw their standards of living put at risk by the inflationary demands for more. The hardest time of my life was well before Thatcher, as a young mother in the early 70s.

 

Unprofitable businesses weren't going to be propped up forever by the taxpayers, but the unions refused to compromise with any government. If they had, then perhaps Margaret Thatcher's government would never have been elected. What if?

[Jessica23]

Good link from the "]Daily Mash

 

 

People with no idea who Thatcher was 'ecstatic' that she's dead

THOUSANDS of people under 35 are rejoicing at the demise of a woman they once read about.

 

Really don't understand this as an objection. I'm 31 and I have plenty of views about Thatcher, views that are informed by ten years of studying history and politics. Just like I have views about the French Revolution and WWI and whatever else.

 

If only people who have direct experience of something have a valid opinion then that's going to be a bit of a major blow to history, knowledge, cultural production, journalism etc etc.

[MrSmith]

So, are you saying everything was rosy in the garden of England before she came to power? There were no strikes by numerous Unions? There was no 3 day week? There was no 33% income tax (and no concessions for the low-paid)?

 

I must have lived in a parallel universe back then and read and been taught the wrong history at school. Perhaps I should have used the Comrade Janet and John abridged version of British history, written by the great historian Hans Christen Anderson.

 

Only the myopic could defend the mess that Britain was in towards the end of the 1970's and ony the brainwashed could refute that militant unions had anything whatsoever to do with the state of the nation at that time.

 

Some may or may not agree with Thatcher's policies, but I defy anyone who lived through the 1970's to say, without conviction and sincerity that Britain was a truly great country to live in then - unless you were a member of a union or, more importantly, a union leader.

 

I see, despite the hardship in 1984-85, Arthur Scargill did alright out of it. Home and flat paid for by the NUM. His members might have suffered, but he sure as hell made sure he did not. So much for being all in it together.

 

I think, I read and I don't read the Sun (or The Mirror). I read various accounts of events written by those pro and those against. I take views and opinions from all sides before coming to my conclusions.

 

So, give the rest of us the benefit of your profound and unbiased wisdom - as you appear to know the truth (your version of...)

 

I think was also in the parallel universe with you.

[POLSKI]

Instead of spouting garbage about Maggie T shutting all the industries why don't all the anti-Maggies pool their resources and set up these industries again. Buy an old pit and reopen it. Set up a steelworks. Build cars. You'll be raking in the profits in no time.