thatcher

[Legion]

I think I was to young to realy understand economies and such when thatcher was in power, and then too inexperianced in work/home life.

 

my general memories of that era is "better than they are now" as most of my adult working life has been with labour government...and I get poorer every year.

[asperity]

It was Major and Bliar who signed up to the main reforms to legislation that have us slaves of the EUSSR People like to focus their hatred towards Maggie while ignoring the enormous damage done to this country by her predecessors Wilson, Heath and Callaghan. Heath in particular lied through his not inconsiderable teeth to persuade us to join the corrupt edifice that is the European Superstate. Wilson and Callaghan were just typical Labour spendthrifts in hock to the unions. Compared to that trio Maggie was a breath of fresh air

[Bazj]

And Ronald got a whacking great battleship or aircraft carrier named after him too..... maybe we could call one of our two new super carriers "HMS Maggie"!

 

 

or HMS Maggie the women that brought the country down

 

And would you consider that this so called Labour government is doing a better job at looking after our own people and national interests then? or do you; like me, think that Brown and Bliar have sold us down the river into the EUSSR (I like that abreviation.... found it on the net!!)

 

The Labour pack have done even less for the working man than any Tory regime has. nick the 10p tax threshold, give all of our powers to Europe, let millions of cheap eastern european workers in to supress the wages in the lowest paid jobs already. Plus, you have the latest stealth tax; steal money off you for buying a more polluting car 7 years ago!! (Well obviously you should have known then shouldn't you?)

[observer]

Think you've missed the gist Baz: "New" Labour isn't socialist, niether is it nationalist; it has merely occupied the centre right of politics, in other words they are Tories - hence the growing wealth gap. And ALL of them since Heath conned us into the EU, have been fully behind our continued membership (included Maggie).

[JimmyMac]

She can have a state funeral as long as the contract is put out to competitive tender and the lowest bid accepted - regardless of the quality. Seems only fair.

[asperity]

To be honest JM she would probably agree with you, and if she didn't once she's dead she's not going to be bothered anyway, so its all subjective.

[Jerry]

Mary, no, it's not automatic, depends on your family's wishes and political clout. General Douglas MacArthur and J. Edgar Hoover were honored with State Funerals.

[Bazj]

I'd vote "Yes" to a state funeral for the entire current government....... as long as it is next week!

[observer]

We'd have a slight problem IF she was in charge now - she's reported to have dementia. Mind you, in the case of a politician, that may not be a handicap!

[asperity]

Our present PM isn't exactly "all there" in my opinion

[wolfie]

We'd have a slight problem IF she was in charge now - she's reported to have dementia. Mind you, in the case of a politician, that may not be a handicap!

 

Well if she can't remember what a disaster she was, the rest of the country can

[Bazj]

Well if she can't remember what a disaster she was, the rest of the country can

 

That depends on how you look at history though Wolfie.... many would say she was far from being as bad as some make out

[observer]

Well, we're certainly living her legacy now!

[wolfie]

Well if she can't remember what a disaster she was, the rest of the country can

 

That depends on how you look at history though Wolfie.... many would say she was far from being as bad as some make out

 

I remain one of the few then, oh for a coal mine just when we need one

[Adam]

Whether or not Maggie has a State Funeral is of no concern to me, nor her, I suspect.

But reading through the posts I note that most posters seem incapable of putting their own political leanings to one side when commenting.

If you do so, and think about what various PMs have achieved, there is little doubt that Thatcher and Blair are the two outstanding PMs since Churchill, who probably stands on his own.

 

I also note references to the "wealth gap" as if this is a bad thing. This is not necessarily so. If there is no wealth gap, what is the point of trying to achieve wealth?

The wealth gap is a good thing if you happen to be on the right side of it.

If you are not, you have only yourself to blame, whichever government is in power.

[asperity]

Well, we're certainly living her legacy now!

The legacy we're living now is that of the 16 years of disastrous rule we've had since she was so unceremoniously dumped. Some people's short term memories are being blanked out by their over imaginative long term memories.

[observer]

Beg to differ Asp: fundementally there has been no radical difference between the Thatcher regime and her successors, including Tory Bliar; and the cult of the individual ("there's no such thing as society"); has permeated all echolons of that society, hence it's current disfunctional state.

[wolfie]

The long term memories are more difficult to forget

 

Her naval cuts encouraged the Argies to invade the Falklands

She destroyed the coal industry

She took milk from schoolchildren

She sold off all our railways, coal, steel and power industries

She put millions out of work

She encouraged the spivs in the city to new heights of greed

She created the selfish non-society we still struggle with today

She defended murderous dictators like Pinochet

The woman was and is a disgrace who should have been put in jail alongside Blair and Bush

 

Churchill would have been ashamed of her

[Adam]

I don't think you can justify any of the eight "achievements" you attribute to Margaret Thatcher. Most of the things you list were already happening before she came to office.

She certainly didn't destroy the coal industry. She destroyed the NUM - and it wanted destroying!

[observer]

The destruction of the NUM as well as other large Unions was no doubt the underlying motive; but to do it; she had to destroy our dependancy on coal; and the advent of North Sea oil and gas provided the funding and opportunity to do just that. Scargill, actually (with hindsight) under-estimated the scale of the closures; and the N/Sea oil revenues helped fund the consequential record unemployment caused by this de-manning, which later developed into record incapacity benefit dependency in order to disguise the unemployment figure; which in turn has created our current benefits dependency culture and total reliance on service industries and imports of foreign manufactured goods. Add to this, the concept of "there's no such thing as society" and the promotion of the "begger you Jack, I'm alright" rat race; the selling off (at give away prices) of our social housing stock; and the scene was set for our current malaise.

[Legion]

I also note references to the "wealth gap" as if this is a bad thing. This is not necessarily so. If there is no wealth gap, what is the point of trying to achieve wealth?

The wealth gap is a good thing if you happen to be on the right side of it.

If you are not, you have only yourself to blame, whichever government is in power.

 

but there are people with unimaginable wealth, beyond their needs. why?

 

lets say you have ?100k in the bank and you have a comfortable house, you can pay all your bills as they arrive and can afford. a couple of hols a year, a new car every 2.. this would be idealistic for most people.

 

take it up a notch, you like a big house, 7 weeks holiday a year, a couple of cars, maybe a sports model, 3/4 million in the bank and like to splash out regularly on extravagance, rent a yaught twice a year for ?100k a week, horses, 20 achres of land in a nice place wheer average house prices are 2.5 million.. this would be a great succesful life for most people, things that dreams are made of.

 

beyond that what could you possibly want that is beyond your means, you could own the yaught, but you would only use it periodicaly, otherwise you wouldnt be in your expensive house, you can provide comfortably for all your family to an equal level, but theres people way beyond that

 

bill gates personal wealth in 2004 was 46 billion..yet he cannot do any more than he could will 1 billion for his personal comfort, so all he is doing is depriving the rest of the world of 45 billion...45 billions worth of struggling, death and staving children.

 

if you take everyone from the forbes 10 rich list (2004)and add up thear wealt, give them back 1 billion each thats 317 billion dollars that the world is deprived of. you could share it between the worlds 6 billion people and they would all be $50 better off.

not much maybe but according to unicef 30,000 children die every day due to poverty.

 

so instead of world aid, live aid, oxfam and us not so rich sticking our hands in our pockets we cap thease people to 1 billion and every dying child per YEAR could benefit from $28,000 EACH (thats 1 million children+)...not that they need anything one 10th of that, but it shows what diffrence this can make to others.

[KeithR]

I don't think you can justify any of the eight "achievements" you attribute to Margaret Thatcher. Most of the things you list were already happening before she came to office.

She certainly didn't destroy the coal industry. She destroyed the NUM - and it wanted destroying!

 

Don't know what history books you've been reading, but the coal mines that shut down when she was in power will never ever reopen, at a time when we are desperate for our own energy supplies.

I agree she was a disaster

[Peter T]

Legion.

Good post.

[Adam]

Legion

 

I don't think we are talking about the "super rich" (or least, I wasn't).

However, in defence of that elite group, let's not forget that most if not all of them employ staff, create wealth for others and generally provide employment.

And why pick on a businessman - particularly one who DOES make some attempt to pass on some of his wealth to others? I think he has done rather more than he had done in 2004, by the way.

 

Why not pick on the rock stars, the footballers, etc who acquire vast fortunes out of all proportion to what they create?

 

What's more they create it out of the stupidity of the general population who pay ridiculous ticket prices to go and see them.

 

Business people generally create something for others.

 

You are probably using some of Mr Gates' software to access this forum, of course!

[observer]

The obscene incomes of footballers, pop singers, city bookmakers etc; arn't something that can be capped; BUT they can be taxed - I'd recommend super-tax at 99.9%. It used to be over 80% until THATCHER cut it first to 60%, then to 40%; and instead of reversing that, New Labour just carried on with it, indeed, sucking up to the super-rich for Party donations - yuk. And before anyone comes up with that old hardy perennial - "they'd all leave the Country" - fine; I'm sure we can do without such non-essentials - so good riddance. Mind you, they could be bounced for quite a few other taxes before they leave!