Thatcher

[counter_violent]

I can't say I ever liked Maggie or always agreed with her, but she was needed and transformed this country from the sick man of Europe into a modern society by various means. She damaged the power of the union barons though many people in the older smokestack rust belt industries lost their jobs through no fault of their own - unlike car workers and other groups who destroyed their own industries.
The reality of cheaper and more efficient overseas labour markets created some of the harsh economic suffering of many but that was an inevitability of modernisation of an old industrial economy trying to compete in a rapidly changing world.

I shudder to think of what our position would now be if Labour had continued in power or the Tories without Maggie. We would make Greece look efficient and prosperous.

A lot of the hatred is pure Leftist venom, some is based on personal experiences of unemployment in the 80s and the latter is at least understandable.

In the end she dragged a screaming resentful nation into modernity and at least some competitiveness in some fields. In doing so she generated hatred, but sometimes you have to see things in the whole, in the round and I would much rather have had her and her errors than the hideous alternative of union baron control and terminal decline.

How very much better off are the vast majority of people now than then.
As she herself said when forced out by the enemies she made in her own party, the country was so much better off when she left than when she came.
Rest In Peace, the great but flawed Maggie.

Yeah, pretty much sums it up.

I highlighted this bit. We are in fact all flawed, it's just that those who are in the spotlight attract more scrutiny and therefore their flaws are more easily detected..

 

[Liquid validity]

The problem is that it matters not who the names are...they are all non accountable because they have set up the frameworks in such a manner that allows it.

What would happen if....every country had to balance it's books year on year and if the govt overspent....the shortfall came out of next years budget?

All these ******s would leave immediately and we would then be left with competent people who would at least try to do a good job.

I'm all for writing an e-petition ref the above.

Would people sign it? Who knows 100,000 signatures required. Are there 100,000 sensible people in the UK ?

Fair point, but who draws up the guidelines and defines overspend as
unavoidable, one off exceptional or just plain irresponsible?

Blame can be laid at several doors, ability to print to pay debts for starters.
Central govt. micro manage, or out of sight, out of mind devolution.
Even apparently simple things like inter departmental procurement
can be a monumental money pit, most of which seems to go unchecked.

As well as the balls up that start at the top, there are many more
cases of overspend, waste and misuse of public funds at every level which all
add up.
Probably still wouldn't cover Gordon flogging all that gold though

What you really need is dynamic, semi micro managed, performance driven budget management.
That allows flexibility, whilst curbing waste.
Generally I would say the outsourced private sector does a much better job
in that regard, as its easier to micro manage a company as opposed to a
govt. and country.

Apart from safety related, low or almost zero profit areas, where quite frankly,
the private sectors track record has been p!ss poor - that's why
railtrack and transco were formed.
In those areas the only way to generate profit is by cutting costs,
although that could perhaps be blamed on an arduous regulatory regime, maybe.

 

[counter_violent]

You need to bear in mind Murdoch's press and media dominance had a lot to do with shaping public opinion for the last 20 decades in the UK. More a question of who got in bed with them. Right now it is a question of who looks cute rather than who is a respected statesmen. We can talk about these parties till the cows come home but the fact is we are in the same old mess as before means not much has changed.

My point is Thatcher other than taking unions down to size messed up the economy and much of what is attributed to her is more to do with gradual recovery in global trade.

She destroyed what she didn't understand on the whims of experimental monetary economics in search of some new economic solution to stop and go policies of the past.

We are not stronger as a result of her decade in power. Blair emulated the Conservatives and further took us into mess.

Good solution right now would be to re-nationalise some of the rip off utilities and use proceeds to pay back debt. One can not introduce competition into what is a natural monopoly. ie pipes going into a house.

We also need to start manufacturing some basic goods again. I think transport will always be a requirement from bikes to trains all forms including air.

We should also open up the coal mines again. I have no idea why we import 70% of our coal from Columbia, Poland or Russia whilst keeping perfectly fit men in idle ruin.

We need to put the steel back into Sheffield. We need to put the heart back into Birmingham and Coventry.

We need to look at what our competitors are doing and invest in the latest state of the art technology and production methods to win back markets.

We need to change land ownership and planning laws. Invest in promoting agriculture in small holdings as well as eco-green industries.

Service sector alone is insufficient clear insufficient. The big banks are still paying ridiculous bonuses and shareholders have not exactly lost out. I thought Brown did well to re-nationalise RBS and Lloyds in part at least when time comes treasury can recoup some bailouts back.


A good start would be to reverse Thatchers policies effectively. She wasn't the only choice and her policies are not the only solution either.

In fact the guy who advised her on the closure of coal mines was some American consultant Ian MacGregor who then went to I think advise on railway privatisation. Both pretty much big screw ups but there you go. Bring in the yanks to kick ass. He got a pretty big pay check too.

Shameful... Really really shameful painful remarkably inept destruction of the UK economy with seeds laid for rewarding failure after failure, greed and theft at a national grand scale.

Give her a medal and to all those who think she was great and there were no alternatives to her.

What a load of rubbish.

You don't half talk some crap.

A few highlighted bits that are worth a comment...I can't even be bothered with the rest.

Re nationalizing either costs money (tax payer) or govt just takes it over (theft)
Q. Where are the proceeds in all this that pay back debt?

I'll take your figures at face value then.
The reason we import 70% of coal from other countries must be cost.
So, if we can get British miners to work for say £400 a week, then maybe we would have a viable coal industry. It's not rocket science to figure this out!

 

[Liquid validity]

You need to bear in mind Murdoch's press and media dominance had a lot to do with shaping public opinion for the last 20 decades in the UK. More a question of who got in bed with them. Right now it is a question of who looks cute rather than who is a respected statesmen.

As I've already pointed out, Hague, Duncan Smith, and Gordon Brown have
had a shot and dropped the ball.
So why repeat what is clearly a false statement?

Give her a medal and to all those who think she was great and there were no alternatives to her.

What a load of rubbish.

Deja vu - Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock.
Circular argument going nowhere.
Even you think they were a realistic alternative,
the vast majority of voters disagreed with you.
Case closed.

 

[the hare]

Are there 100,000 sensible people in the UK ?

Nowhere near that. ID be amazed if you could find 500

 

[Atilla]

As I've already pointed out, Hague, Duncan Smith, and Gordon Brown have
had a shot and dropped the ball.
So why repeat what is clearly a false statement?


Deja vu - Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock.
Circular argument going nowhere.
Even you think they were a realistic alternative,
the vast majority of voters disagreed with you.
Case closed.

Not at all. The Falkland war raised her popularity and by a large account got her re-elected. Media didn't like Kinnock either. Active campaign against him by the Sun newspaper.

Kinnock was a leader - greatly missed.

Vast majority of the people do disagree yes - I don't go much for illusions of grandeur.

Case closed.

Good one.

 

[counter_violent]

Fair point, but who draws up the guidelines and defines overspend as unavoidable, one off exceptional or just plain irresponsible?

Blame can be laid at several doors, ability to print to pay debts for starters.
Central govt. micro manage, or out of sight, out of mind devolution.
Even apparently simple things like inter departmental procurement
can be a monumental money pit, most of which seems to go unchecked.

As well as the balls up that start at the top, there are many more
cases of overspend, waste and misuse of public funds at every level which all
add up.
Probably still wouldn't cover Gordon flogging all that gold though

What you really need is dynamic, semi micro managed, performance driven budget management.
That allows flexibility, whilst curbing waste.
Generally I would say the outsourced private sector does a much better job
in that regard, as its easier to micro manage a company as opposed to a
govt. and country.

Apart from safety related, low or almost zero profit areas, where quite frankly,
the private sectors track record has been p!ss poor - that's why
railtrack and transco were formed.
In those areas the only way to generate profit is by cutting costs,
although that could perhaps be blamed on an arduous regulatory regime, maybe.

M8, you have just made the case for "small govt" which is pretty much exactly what Thatcher was all about.

Hand the determination back to the people and let them get on with it. It really is that simple.

Ok. You earn £1,000 a week. You have 2 choices. Either you get to keep £800 and spend it, save it, invest it, etc however you see fit. Or, you get to keep £400 with the remainder going to the govt and they spend it / waste it for you.

So the Q is, do you think that other people can better spend money without you having any say so on how it's spent?

 

[Liquid validity]

M8, you have just made the case for "small govt" which is pretty much exactly what Thatcher was all about.

Hand the determination back to the people and let them get on with it. It really is that simple.

Ok. You earn £1,000 a week. You have 2 choices. Either you get to keep £800 and spend it, save it, invest it, etc however you see fit. Or, you get to keep £400 with the remainder going to the govt and they spend it / waste it for you.

So the Q is, do you think that other people can better spend money without you having any say so on how it's spent?

To clear up any confusion, yes I know, that is what I intended
That doesn't mean I agree with everything she did.
As far as small govt. completely agree.

 

[Liquid validity]

Kinnock was a leader - greatly missed.

Vast majority of the people do disagree yes - I don't go much for illusions of grandeur.

Case closed.

Good one.

Blair is the only credible leader apart from John Smith that Labour have had
in decades.
The rest either made a complete mess or had too much of an idealistic bias
to their own politics and hardcore voters at the expense of balance.
You don't seriously believe Kinnock was one of the best Labour leaders do you?
He may have started to break the union link, but he was never a serious
contender for PM.

 

[counter_violent]

As for the kin kinnocks.
Spare us.

Revealed: How the Kinnocks have enjoyed an astonishing £10m ride on the EU gravy train | Mail Online

 

[Liquid validity]

As for the kin kinnocks.
Spare us.

Revealed: How the Kinnocks have enjoyed an astonishing £10m ride on the EU gravy train | Mail Online

 

[VielGeld]

It is not the job of Government to redistribute wealth.

Is it? I think it makes for a more peaceful society...

I like Canada's brand of capitalism. I think It's got a good capitalist/socialist balance. Capitalist enough to be competitive, and socialist enough that people can enjoy public services such as healthcare they couldn't afford otherwise.

Capitalism is great, don't get me wrong. We have all this material wealth as proof. But it's also a competitive system, and competition is a hard way to make a living. Taken to an extreme, you run people ragged just to keep up with the other guy. I can't say that does any good for your personal health...

So maybe skimming a bit off the top to support the masses isn't a bad a thing. It can make for an easier living. Prop up the bottom a bit so they don't have to suffer as much if they can't compete or keep up.

Of course, that's just my personal opinion, but I think it's a viable ideology given all the material wealth we have these days.

 

[bbmac]

Good point you make. I'd go further - the model of capitalism that has developed in this country by Thatcher and has largely gone unchallenged since she introduced it has seen 80% of the wealth go to 20% of the people or less...how can this be fair ? It is a broken model and has led to social upheaval and a broken society and a growing underclass.. remember in Thatcher's 11 years - recorded crime doubled ! The model needs fixing or we will continue to pay the price in social terms and the growing inequality will breed more resentment and division....and in all recorded human history - this has only ever lead one way - and it hasn't been good.

Serious problems require serious solutions - not just tinkering at the edges.

G/L

Is it? I think it makes for a more peaceful society...

I like Canada's brand of capitalism. I think It's got a good capitalist/socialist balance. Capitalist enough to be competitive, and socialist enough that people can enjoy public services such as healthcare they couldn't afford otherwise.

Capitalism is great, don't get me wrong. We have all this material wealth as proof. But it's also a competitive system, and competition is a hard way to make a living. Taken to an extreme, you run people ragged just to keep up with the other guy. I can't say that does any good for your personal health...

So maybe skimming a bit off the top to support the masses isn't a bad a thing. It can make for an easier living. Prop up the bottom a bit so they don't have to suffer as much if they can't compete or keep up.

Of course, that's just my personal opinion, but I think it's a viable ideology given all the material wealth we have these days.

 

[bbmac]

The Yahoo poll asking whether Thatcher changed Britain for the better has returned a result of 53% yes - 47% no - it couldn't be any more polarised than that.

Funny thing re a twitter hashtag ' Thatcherisdead' - Cher started to trend in google as many thought the songstress had passed lol ! - they knew Cher but not Thatcher !

G/L

 

[neil]

Mate, I would sign it. I think it is Chile that enshrined the requirement for a balanced budget into law a few years ago. it's a good idea. Since The U.s won independence in 1776 they have only had 5 balanced budgets or better ie budget surpluses and 3 of them were under Clinton.....and the result - $15trillion of debt and counting forecast to rise to $24trillion by 2018. For 30 years we have been told by govts of both colours that we can have increased public spending and lower taxes...Doh ! I know it's a no brainer - but there has been no serious challenge to this lie resulting in the exponential growth in national debt - the interest owed to service it (not pay it back) is now more than the education and defence budgets put together. The public has chosen to believe it or at least not challenge it and so we are complicit in where we find ourselves today. Thatcher started the process with massive supply side reforms and shifting the tax burden away from income to spending (direct progressive to indirect regressive taxation ie in Howe's 2nd budget she cut the basic rate of income tax from 33p to 30p and virtually doubled vat from 8% to 15%...this trend has continued ever since in the vain but hopelessly disproven belief that by cutting tax on income it allows the economy to grow and the increase in gdp growth and resultant taxation increase will plug the gap between govt spending and govt income. Western govts even measure national debt as a % of GDP - but gdp is not govt income - debt should be measured relative to income but of course this figure would be way too scary so it is published as a measure of the larger gdp number lest the public get overly concerned and actually do something about it . By 2015 the end of this current parliament - this govt will have borrowed more than all previous govts in history put together. Regardless of how we got here/who's fault it is - yarda yarda - that is another debate, this is exponentiality at work and we and U.s and most of the Eu are on the wrong part of that curve.

Whilst we are at it let us have joined up thinking on consumer debt - let us join up the 3 main consumer credit reference agencies too (Equifax, Experian and the other one whose name escapes me) and let's make it law that personal unsecured lending can only account for x % (20% ish) of annual income at any time, and whilst we are at it let's return to a maximum multiple of 2.5 earnings for mortgage lending which along with other measures would drive house prices down and make home ownership affordable again. Will any of these measures happen any time soon - you can bet your life not !

Don't get me started lol (and this from a reputed socialist ! )

BBMAC - my hero

 

[neil]

Agree about Churchill but in the old days things were different. Now days most things are make up and training on presentation without substance.

Vince Cable or Nick Clegg?
Kenneth Clarke or Ian Duncan Smith or William Hague or Cameron?
Gordon Brown or David Milliband? Where on earth did Ed come from (TU vote you say )

It's about looks youth and presentation. Substance, achievement and standing has nothing do with it.


All this thrashing out late into the hours and so forth is rubbish. What one needs is a good manager who can bring / promote good people who can deliver and extract the best out of them. Take advice, compromise and produce positive change that people want.

International stage is also much ado about nothing. Usually downfall of these so call big leaders who get ahead of them selves wasting time else where instead of managing domestic issues. Moreover, on international visit a whole host of civil servants and professionals usually do the discussions into the late hours. PMs read the scripts.

This is where all this greatness nonsense gets us. Nowhere fast. People think we are important on the world stage whilst country goes down the pan.

We have an aging popullation with couple of wet Etonites who know how to present themselves and talk politics in front of cameras. Trained in the art of illusion on how to answer difficult questions admirably well whilst smiling.

Tony Benn for Prime Minister - at least he has political integrity as opposed to the school leavers who have chosen "politics" as a career, rather than gaining experience of the world of work before taking up politics

 

[counter_violent]

The Yahoo poll asking whether Thatcher changed Britain for the better has returned a result of 53% yes - 47% no - it couldn't be any more polarised than that.

Funny thing re a twitter hashtag ' Thatcherisdead' - Cher started to trend in google as many thought the songstress had passed lol ! - they knew Cher but not Thatcher !

G/L

It's hopeless aint it.
They all live in lala land.

By insulating ordinary people from the harsh realities of real world economics via subsidy, we do them no favours, when the hand outs stop...they are lost.

It's no coincidence either that as people have become more selfish, isolated and less inclined to co-operate, that the cracks appear and everything falls apart.

So the Thatcher type govt framework of less is more is probably correct, but the thing thats missing is probably co-operation.

Maybe the way to tackle redistribution would be at source. (circumvent the govt, make them irrelevant)

The rise of the co-op.
The Rochdale Pioneers- TimelineThe Rochdale Pioneers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_Principles

 

[neil]

You need to bear in mind Murdoch's press and media dominance had a lot to do with shaping public opinion for the last 20 decades in the UK. More a question of who got in bed with them. Right now it is a question of who looks cute rather than who is a respected statesmen. We can talk about these parties till the cows come home but the fact is we are in the same old mess as before means not much has changed.

My point is Thatcher other than taking unions down to size messed up the economy and much of what is attributed to her is more to do with gradual recovery in global trade.

She destroyed what she didn't understand on the whims of experimental monetary economics in search of some new economic solution to stop and go policies of the past.

We are not stronger as a result of her decade in power. Blair emulated the Conservatives and further took us into mess.

Good solution right now would be to re-nationalise some of the rip off utilities and use proceeds to pay back debt. One can not introduce competition into what is a natural monopoly. ie pipes going into a house.

We also need to start manufacturing some basic goods again. I think transport will always be a requirement from bikes to trains all forms including air.

We should also open up the coal mines again. I have no idea why we import 70% of our coal from Columbia, Poland or Russia whilst keeping perfectly fit men in idle ruin.

We need to put the steel back into Sheffield. We need to put the heart back into Birmingham and Coventry.

We need to look at what our competitors are doing and invest in the latest state of the art technology and production methods to win back markets.

We need to change land ownership and planning laws. Invest in promoting agriculture in small holdings as well as eco-green industries.

Service sector alone is insufficient clear insufficient. The big banks are still paying ridiculous bonuses and shareholders have not exactly lost out. I thought Brown did well to re-nationalise RBS and Lloyds in part at least when time comes treasury can recoup some bailouts back.


A good start would be to reverse Thatchers policies effectively. She wasn't the only choice and her policies are not the only solution either.

In fact the guy who advised her on the closure of coal mines was some American consultant Ian MacGregor who then went to I think advise on railway privatisation. Both pretty much big screw ups but there you go. Bring in the yanks to kick ass. He got a pretty big pay check too.

Shameful... Really really shameful painful remarkably inept destruction of the UK economy with seeds laid for rewarding failure after failure, greed and theft at a national grand scale.

Give her a medal and to all those who think she was great and there were no alternatives to her.

What a load of rubbish.

I know I am an old git but I do not recognise the Labour movement of today and, sadly for me, cannot vote for a party that I no longer believe in. A party that allows house prices to soar beyond the reach of the average worker by ignoring the old checks and balances relating to income and personal borrowing.
I doubt things will change unless the system hits a brick wall when attempts to keep house prices etc artificially high, fail to prevent a collapse to "affordable" levels. Cameron dropped a clanger when he initially stated people should borrow less. Someone whispered in his ear that the merry go round of outright capitalism in this country depends upon people living way beyond their means; indeed making debt the lifestyle of choice for many. Cameron then rapidly withdrew his "get rid of debt" statement for one that muddied the waters of economic reality. The net result is that Labour is simply a mirror reflection of Conservative.

 

[Atilla]

Blair is the only credible leader apart from John Smith that Labour have had
in decades.
The rest either made a complete mess or had too much of an idealistic bias
to their own politics and hardcore voters at the expense of balance.
You don't seriously believe Kinnock was one of the best Labour leaders do you?
He may have started to break the union link, but he was never a serious
contender for PM.

He was very much a serious contender indeed. As I have said Maggie was loathed and her policies were in total dissarray in her first term. She was totally out of her depth until the advisors and artists went to work.

Public Sector Borrowing Requirement doubled and the country was in big debt. Unemployment at 3m+ . Many parts of the country decimated and devastated.

Rest of Europe was out of the recession and doing really well. Then came the Falkands war and her fortune changed.


You guys believe what ever notion you choose to believe. She was very much hated by her own party too.


Reason why Blair won three victorious is because people who knew didn't want to go back to the social service cost cutting ways of Maggie. Running down services. She happened to be leader at the right time coinciding with global economic growth.

Furthermore, Blair too wanted to be war time cabinet leader and emulating Thatcher would have killed to go to war and win victory. (Indeed he did as David Kelly died over their sexed up dossier over Iraq).

I'm afraid with the exception of Major we have had two lost decades in my opinion of continued mis-management of the UK economy.

Yes I do have the benefit of hind-sight and 20-20 vision. But if we don't call it as it is and draw lessons learned we are in serious danger of repeating these errors.

Calling for small government, greed is good culture and the old invisible hand notion is doomed to failure. Same as some people saying communism / socialism failed because it really wasn't implemented as it was prescribed. Cheering free market economics saying it didn't go far enough as a reason for its failure is a load of nonsense. Some people are still in denial.

It was government, tax payers and effective nationalisation of the banks that saved us all from ruin. If the shareholders trumped up with more money then it would be capitalism.


But the poor old lady tried her best. Intentions were good. Delivery was very poor.

May she RIP.

 

[Mr. Charts]

Did she win three elections because she was unpopular?