Thatcher

bbmac

bbmac

Veteren member
Messages
3,584
Likes
789
The usual suspects with unsurprising platitudes are filling the airwaves since her death was announced. Reverential and and Respectful would sum it up so far - Gerry Adams the Sinn Fein President bucking that trend, with Ed Milliband's carefully worded statement reflecting the ideological division that still exists at the Heart of ' Old labour ' and ' Thatcherism.'

They called her a conservative, she was after all the Leader of the 'Conservative and unionist' party as it was once, but she was far from being a conservative. She was like Blair after her someone who hijacked a party down on it's luck and desperate for power at any price. Thatcher was a free market radical whose central philosophy instilled in her by mentor Keith Joseph (via Milton Friedman)was that free markets will cure all, and Society is secondary. How wrong she was -and we are living with the cost of that mistake today and will be for years to come. The market does not cure all and society does matter and if you allow one to run riot whilst largely ignoring it's socio economic effects we arrive at 2008 and beyond, - a country brought to it's knees by the excesses of free market economics and a broken society where the rich get richer-the poor get poorer and we all pay the price.

My sympathies go out to her family and I have no doubt that she acted from conviction, but it should never be forgotten that in her central ideology/conviction - she was wrong.

G/L
 
bbmac said:
My sympathies go out to her family and I have no doubt that she acted from conviction, but it should never be forgotten that in her central ideology/conviction - she was wrong.

G/L
Click to expand...
I'm guessing you're not her biggest fan bbmac?
:LOL:
She did indeed act from conviction; something Roy Hattersley acknowledged in his comments about her this lunchtime on the World at One. Personally, I agree with you that she was wrong in that conviction - but, let's not forget that many will completely disagree and regard her as the best PM we've ever had. Although I never liked her, I always admired her work ethic and I don't doubt that she genuinely believed that everything she did was in the best interests of the country as a whole. In fairness, although she made some terrible mistakes (don't mention the Belgrano Tim, oops - too late) she wasn't Mugabe or Hessian. In summary, I think of her as a great talent and, had her ideology resulted in lasting tangible benefits for the nation, then she would indeed be remembered as one of the greatest PMs we've ever had.
Tim.
 
pboyles said:
Wasn't the Belgrano an enemy ship?
Click to expand...

In a sort of t2w make up and alter the rules as you go along kind of way, I suppose it was.

Still, what's the point of having an army, navy and Air Force if you don't get to use them once in a while ?
 
It's amazing how fickle the people are. This was a woman who was elected three times, which shows how deeply uninterested working people are, especially, because they are supposed to vote Labour.

It is another example of a democracy getting the leader it deserves.

Thatcher was not liked and was knifed by her own party, not by the electorate.

The electorate became big shareholders of the privatised companies. Remember Sid, the gas man? Like good businessmen the working class sold its shares at a profit, many of the water company are now French owned.

Thatches was to blame, all right-----my ****!

I did not like Thatcher but she only did what she thought was right. The rest was done by the other 60,000,000 of us.

If more than 40% got off their sofas and voted, Cameron would not have got in, either. Now that he has, guess who's to blame?
 
RIP. A true inspiration.

No doubt the window lickers where I live (big Labour area) will be rejoicing. Mention Thatcher here, and inbetween wiping drool from their chins, all you will hear is 'closed the mines'........'grunt'..........'destroyed the unions'.........'grunt.'
 
Theres always two sides of a coin in politics and I do accept that she may have not pleased everyone but overall she was years ahead and changed society for the better.
Look at the amount of people who now own their own home for one,the amount of people who now have shares in companies,the flotations we all got money from. Had she not been stabbed by her own then she would have been in power during the first gulf war. She would have made sure saddam was finished of the first time.The reason Bush senior didnt finish the job was through lack of support after she had gone.id really like to know what the real negatives were and how many it affected?
 
To many she was cold, calculating, killed off the unions, politicised the police and did untold damage to society.

To me though she was a warm, coquettish, generous, loving, caring and sexually alluring individual. I was her secret lover for many years and now she has gone, I can relieve the burden of secrecy I have been carrying for over 2 decades. Any questions, I will spill teh beans to you my trusted friends.
 
Lord Flasheart said:
Theres always two sides of a coin in politics and I do accept that she may have not pleased everyone but overall she was years ahead and changed society for the better.
Look at the amount of people who now own their own home for one,the amount of people who now have shares in companies,the flotations we all got money from. Had she not been stabbed by her own then she would have been in power during the first gulf war. She would have made sure saddam was finished of the first time.The reason Bush senior didnt finish the job was through lack of support after she had gone.id really like to know what the real negatives were and how many it affected?
Click to expand...

You are making the assumption not to remove Saddam in the first Gulf War was a mistake.

All evidence points to the contrary.

Saddam was no threat and harmless. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. 2nd Gulf War was also a big setup/mistake and war purely initiated by the US and UK. Clearly shows 1st Gulf War was correct to stop before becoming involved in Iraqi politics.

I never liked her then or her policies and believe she was a disaster to the country. Her legacy continues to cost us and will do so for some time.

I'm not sure if she would have embarked in wreckless war for politics (as Blair did) - as I also believe she acted out of conviction and integrity to do the right thing for GB.

Blair was full of him self. Thatcher was full of GB.
 
Atilla said:
You are making the assumption not to remove Saddam in the first Gulf War was a mistake.

All evidence points to the contrary.

Saddam was no threat and harmless. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. 2nd Gulf War was also a big setup/mistake and war purely initiated by the US and UK. Clearly shows 1st Gulf War was correct to stop before becoming involved in Iraqi politics.

I never liked her then or her policies and believe she was a disaster to the country. Her legacy continues to cost us and will do so for some time.

I'm not sure if she would have embarked in wreckless war for politics (as Blair did) - as I also believe she acted out of conviction and integrity to do the right thing for GB.

Blair was full of him self. Thatcher was full of GB.
Click to expand...


What legacy is costing us that much. Surely the invasion of Kuwait alone was enough of a reason to finish him off. i understand in many cases there are two sides but Kuwait,come on.
 
Lord Flasheart said:
What legacy is costing us that much. Surely the invasion of Kuwait alone was enough of a reason to finish him off. i understand in many cases there are two sides but Kuwait,come on.
Click to expand...

Decimation of manufacturing industry. There is no diversity in the economy with heavy dependence on service sector.

Big Bang! Self regulation of the financial sector similar to US style. Now we are considering braking up saving banks from investment banks again.

Politicians writing their own expense cheques as part of numeration.

Pol Tax!

Taking over Tory party and running it like a dictatorship. Lawson, Heseltine & Howe!

One has to remember during her reign whole of the global world developed heaped and strides. We don't even have basic manufacturing anymore. We import bikes. :eek:

Pilkington glass, Raleigh bikes, the Mini. I don't know where to stop. Sold the lot to free market enterprise. National state industries sold for a song to foreign companies.

She supported building of roads at the expense of public transport. Company cars were tax efficient. Public transport exorbitant.

She gave tax rebates to Private Hospitals and closed NHS hospitals. Then called it private free market.

Economically, fundamentally she was soooo very bad for the UK I am absolutely
amazed at all the glory given to her.
 
Timsk: No, I was never her biggest fan. Can you name these '...lasting tangible benefits for the nation ...' ?

Pboyles: Yes the Belgrano was an enemy sub - sailing away from the Falklands and outside the 12 mile exclusion zone we had imposed around it....It's sinking with loss of 600 lives would today be treated as a war crime and it was on her express order outside of the known rules of engagement. Remember we had lost the HMS Sir Galahad and if memory serves the HMS Sheffield and needed a boost to morale - and along came the Belgrano !

CV: Inevitable it would lol

You arenotfree: Britain is an Island sat on an almost unlimited coal field - was it really beyond the wit of us to figure out how to get it up to surface cost effectively and actually export it - as opposed of course to having to import it as we do now from China and Poland.

Lord Flasheart: How did she '...change society for the better...' ? In what way is society better than it was pre Thatcher ? Just on an economic measure - the average working man has not seen any real term wage rises wince the mid 70's yet the rich have becomes exponentially better off. Living standards for all (including the average working man) have undoubtedly risen but that gap between living standards and wages for him has been plugged by his excessive borrowing against the rise in housing prices - via credit from a market liberalised by Thatcher. Thatcher ended what was known as the ' post war consensus' followed by govt's of both colours - ie the pursuit of rising living standards and full employment. Free market radicals are pure capitalists and capitalism relies of having insufficiently equal distribution of wealth such that by ending the pursuit of full employment - (ie ending the job for life, finish one on a Friday - start a new one on a Monday) productivity would increase by workers fighting for limited jobs...mass unemployment is a necessary evil of capitalism free market economics - without it there is no productivity gain...but the social and cultural costs to our nation have been huge and we will live with them for generations to come.

The reason Bush Senior did not go on to Baghdad is that [with or without Thatcher] the UN Security Council mandate only allowed him to expel him from Kuwait....Atilla makes a good point about how wise this was. Remember Kuwait was rich in oil and America were desperate for a foothold there over Saddam in it's pursuit/influence over essential world resources like oil...Remember too Kuwait was hardly a bastion of democracy and human rights itself and 20 years on + - still isn't...little has changed!

She barely understood economics at the wider macro level but chose the narrower field of micro economics and one monetarist theory in particular to believe in and the social results have been devastating and the economic ones, ultimately a disaster. Only one of her budgets turned a surplus and of all prime ministers since 1979 she has the worst record on inflation. Like all govts before and after her - she also did not understand the exponentiality effect.

G/L
 
bbmac said:
Timsk: No, I was never her biggest fan. Can you name these '...lasting tangible benefits for the nation ...' ?

Pboyles: Yes the Belgrano was an enemy sub - sailing away from the Falklands and outside the 12 mile exclusion zone we had imposed around it....It's sinking with loss of 600 lives would today be treated as a war crime and it was on her express order outside of the known rules of engagement. Remember we had lost the HMS Sir Galahad and if memory serves the HMS Sheffield and needed a boost to morale - and along came the Belgrano !

CV: Inevitable it would lol

You arenotfree: Britain is an Island sat on an almost unlimited coal field - was it really beyond the wit of us to figure out how to get it up to surface cost effectively and actually export it - as opposed of course to having to import it as we do now from China and Poland.

Lord Flasheart: How did she '...change society for the better...' ? In what way is society better than it was pre Thatcher ? Just on an economic measure - the average working man has not seen any real term wage rises wince the mid 70's yet the rich have becomes exponentially better off. Living standards for all (including the average working man) have undoubtedly risen but that gap between living standards and wages for him has been plugged by his excessive borrowing against the rise in housing prices - via credit from a market liberalised by Thatcher. Thatcher ended what was known as the ' post war consensus' followed by govt's of both colours - ie the pursuit of rising living standards and full employment. Free market radicals are pure capitalists and capitalism relies of having insufficiently equal distribution of wealth such that by ending the pursuit of full employment - (ie ending the job for life, finish one on a Friday - start a new one on a Monday) productivity would increase by workers fighting for limited jobs...mass unemployment is a necessary evil of capitalism free market economics - without it there is no productivity gain...but the social and cultural costs to our nation have been huge and we will live with them for generations to come.

The reason Bush Senior did not go on to Baghdad is that [with or without Thatcher] the UN Security Council mandate only allowed him to expel him from Kuwait....Atilla makes a good point about how wise this was. Remember Kuwait was rich in oil and America were desperate for a foothold there over Saddam in it's pursuit/influence over essential world resources like oil...Remember too Kuwait was hardly a bastion of democracy and human rights itself and 20 years on + - still isn't...little has changed!

She barely understood economics at the wider macro level but chose the narrower field of micro economics and one monetarist theory in particular to believe in and the social results have been devastating and the economic ones, ultimately a disaster. Only one of her budgets turned a surplus and of all prime ministers since 1979 she has the worst record on inflation. Like all govts before and after her - she also did not understand the exponentiality effect.

G/L
Click to expand...

The Belgrano wasn't a submarine for a start.
 
bbmac said:
Timsk: Can you name these '...lasting tangible benefits for the nation ...'?
Click to expand...
No bb because, like you, I didn't much care for her and positively disliked her ideology. But, I'm sure her supporters will be able to supply you with a looooooong, long list!
;)
Tim.
 
bbmac said:
Timsk: No, I was never her biggest fan. Can you name these '...lasting tangible benefits for the nation ...' ?

Pboyles: Yes the Belgrano was an enemy sub - sailing away from the Falklands and outside the 12 mile exclusion zone we had imposed around it....It's sinking with loss of 600 lives would today be treated as a war crime and it was on her express order outside of the known rules of engagement. Remember we had lost the HMS Sir Galahad and if memory serves the HMS Sheffield and needed a boost to morale - and along came the Belgrano !

CV: Inevitable it would lol

You arenotfree: Britain is an Island sat on an almost unlimited coal field - was it really beyond the wit of us to figure out how to get it up to surface cost effectively and actually export it - as opposed of course to having to import it as we do now from China and Poland.

Lord Flasheart: How did she '...change society for the better...' ? In what way is society better than it was pre Thatcher ? Just on an economic measure - the average working man has not seen any real term wage rises wince the mid 70's yet the rich have becomes exponentially better off. Living standards for all (including the average working man) have undoubtedly risen but that gap between living standards and wages for him has been plugged by his excessive borrowing against the rise in housing prices - via credit from a market liberalised by Thatcher. Thatcher ended what was known as the ' post war consensus' followed by govt's of both colours - ie the pursuit of rising living standards and full employment. Free market radicals are pure capitalists and capitalism relies of having insufficiently equal distribution of wealth such that by ending the pursuit of full employment - (ie ending the job for life, finish one on a Friday - start a new one on a Monday) productivity would increase by workers fighting for limited jobs...mass unemployment is a necessary evil of capitalism free market economics - without it there is no productivity gain...but the social and cultural costs to our nation have been huge and we will live with them for generations to come.

The reason Bush Senior did not go on to Baghdad is that [with or without Thatcher] the UN Security Council mandate only allowed him to expel him from Kuwait....Atilla makes a good point about how wise this was. Remember Kuwait was rich in oil and America were desperate for a foothold there over Saddam in it's pursuit/influence over essential world resources like oil...Remember too Kuwait was hardly a bastion of democracy and human rights itself and 20 years on + - still isn't...little has changed!

She barely understood economics at the wider macro level but chose the narrower field of micro economics and one monetarist theory in particular to believe in and the social results have been devastating and the economic ones, ultimately a disaster. Only one of her budgets turned a surplus and of all prime ministers since 1979 she has the worst record on inflation. Like all govts before and after her - she also did not understand the exponentiality effect.

G/L
Click to expand...

And I think you'll find the Belgrano was sunk before the Sir Galahad. Still don't let any facts stand in your way.
 
bbmac said:
Free market radicals are pure capitalists and capitalism relies of having insufficiently equal distribution of wealth such that by ending the pursuit of full employment - (ie ending the job for life, finish one on a Friday - start a new one on a Monday) productivity would increase by workers fighting for limited jobs...mass unemployment is a necessary evil of capitalism free market economics - without it there is no productivity gain...but the social and cultural costs to our nation have been huge and we will live with them for generations to come.
Click to expand...

This is perhaps a socialists view of capitalism, or the view from someone who doesn't understand what free-market capitalism actually means. Mass unemployment is NOT the necessary evil of capitalism. What you probably want to say is increased leisure time, new inventions, new industries and a higher standard of living is the reward of capitalism.

I suppose you would rather we were all still riding around in steam trains and horse drawn carriages just so that the people involved in those industries would still have jobs...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Pxxx!d Off
Replies
0
Views
2K
dash riprock
D
Joe Ross
Planning Trades to Control Risk
Replies
3
Views
1K
jaet1989
J
M
Woman held for noisy sex 'breach'
Replies
6
Views
2K
Gumping
Gumping
T
Are cheeky punts bad for your health and wealth?
Replies
6
Views
3K
tradesmart
T
C
For the rich
Replies
2
Views
3K
Atlantic Drifter
A
Top