Rumours abound that Thatcher's snuffed it

[Colbro]

Originally Posted by madaxeman

You seem to completely miss the point, that no matter what statistics you quote - even if they were irrefutable and they're not, there is no justification for the social cost of Thatcher's policies. Policies which she knew would ruin lives, communities, and huge swathes of the country, but which she pursued anyway.
She is a grade A cunt, and anyone, you included, who defends her, is also a grade A cunt.

http://filestore.nationalarchives.go...p-76-117-7.pdf

The economic hardships of the 1980's were caused by the highly irresponsible policies of the labour party during the 1970's - and no one else.

[Colbro]

Originally Posted by madaxeman

You seem to completely miss the point, that no matter what statistics you quote - even if they were irrefutable and they're not, there is no justification for the social cost of Thatcher's policies. Policies which she knew would ruin lives, communities, and huge swathes of the country, but which she pursued anyway.
She is a grade A cunt, and anyone, you included, who defends her, is also a grade A cunt.

I've just reread that quote and basically what you are saying is that you don't care what the facts are, you are right I am wrong and if I disagree then I am a Cunt.

And people wonder why I don't vote labour

Pretty pointless me producing the facts then isn't if you just want to ignore them.

To which all I can say is that I am sorry that you can't see what I can see when I look at the facts. The way I see it is that if a business spends more than it earns it goes bust and the hardship is felt by the suppliers. If a government spends more than it earns then it does not have the luxury of going bust. The only outcome is economic hardship and as is the way of the world this is felt by those that can least afford it.

I can't think of any other outcome from government overspending.

So what to do about the facts then. In the late 1970's we had an unelected labour leader who wildly mispent and we were left with the situation we had in 1979. We are now in a situation where another unelected labour leader has massively overspent. The inevitable outcome of which will soon be even more economic hardship.

To which I can only ask why have they overspent again when it their supporters who get hurt the most. Is it a case that if the poor actually start to acheive things then Labour risk losing the natural support base? Do the labour party actually do the best thing for the working class man?

We need to get beyond left v right, red v blue, tory v socalist and start insisting that our elected governemnts are fiscally responsible and represent what is in our best intersts

[Tom Sawyer]

do you run on duracel colbro, you said you were going to leave it a few posts
back but here you are still going at it, i think your taking the piss now, do yourself
a favour and just forget it,your never going to convince us she was anything other
than a cnut.

[Colbro]

‪Thatcher: There is no such thing as public money‬‏ - YouTube

‪Thatcher: There is no such thing as public money‬‏ - YouTube

self explanatory.

[madaxeman]

Are you fucking mental? She's spouting platitudes at the tory party conference. Her fucking government increased taxation via increasing VAT, introducing prescription charges and dental charges. As usual with the tories, the poorest who could least afford ir it shouldered the brunt. Now fuck off back to never never land you fucking imbecile.

[Seen]

[Colbro]

Ok Madaxeman -

I'm a nice person -- a really nice person

So I will give you the benefit of the doubt for the last time and ask you one question.

Are you REALLY saying that the idea the our governemnt should not spend more money than it can raise through taxation is "fucking mental"

REALLY

[madaxeman]

I'm not saying that it's mental. Like businesses and households, governments should put away in times of plenty and and borrow when they have to keep the whole shooting match afloat.
You are fucking mental for holding up a tory leader, never mind that old cow as a model of fiscal probity. She's the one that sold off the family jewels remember? Not when times were hard, but to fund tax cuts for the rich. Remember?

For one final time - even if you can find statistical evidence to prove that thatcher's economic policies worked - and you can't, there is no justification for the social cost of her policies that'll mean squat to anyone with a brain and a social conscience.


Now if you think it's ok to throw huge parts of the country onto the scrapheap by trying an unproven economic theory en mass, then just you keep fantasising about sucking Hitler's cock.

[Colbro]

Is that the best you can do Axeman. "Sucking Hitlers Cock" shows you have the mentatlity of a 5 year old child and it shows in you repeating the same thing over and over even though what you are saying has been "PROVEN" to be wrong

Let me repeat what you are saying has been "PROVEN" to be wrong.

The heavy loss making nationlisied industries bankrupt the british economy in 1976 FACT and could not therefore be the family silver. Look back through the thread for the PROOF.

For the rest reading this thread the facts make for disturbing reading. The UK governmant has a debt of 1.1 trillion and of course when we say the Uk government the natural tendency is to think of it in some form of third party way when in reallity WE the uk taxpayers have a 1.1 trillion pound debt. We the uk taxpayers have allowed OUR chosen representatives in government to rack up this debt on our behalf and have hardly questioned them about it.

This debt is ours and it no use hoping someone else will pay it - we will have to somehow.

So who is all this debt owed to - well I don't know exactly who but I do know that UK pension funds and UK life assurance companies are huge buyers of Government bonds. So in other words OUR pension funds and life savings are being used to bridge the gap between the money the government spends and what it can raise through taxation.

This year the Governemnt will have a budget deficit of approx 100 billion pounds - in other words our chosen representatives will increase OUR debt to 1.2 trillion pounds.

So for those who claim not to be interested in politics or think it is boring or for someone else maybe you should think again and start to question your MP. It's what they are there for - to represent YOU. All they are doing at the moment is racking up huge bills - bills YOU have to pay for

To put this in context 1 trillion divided by 50 million is 20,000. My son will shortly turn 18 and when he does he will instantly be handed his share of OUR debt - even though he blameless. (there's my vested interest Slick to answer your question from a few posts back) When he was first born and I got him his first passport I thought it would be a tremendous asset to him - now I am not too sure.

The worry (for me anyway) is will future generations make sure their MPs' do something about our debt saying what they have inherited is not their fault. Will they say default on the debt or print sufficent currency to wipe out the debt. If they were to do so it would make our pensions and life savings almost worthless ( or at least worth a lot less) overnight.

Anyway - enough rambling from me - the current situation depresses me too much.
As always - if my facts are wrong please correct me. If all you want to do is insult me and call me childish names it just confirms to me that I am right. Any insult is just an admission that you have no political argument left.

[Colbro]

Originally Posted by madaxeman

No argument about that, it is a well known fact, and taken on it's own it might well be considered a good thing. What is not addressed is the billions of oil revenue which a/ paid of the national deficit and b/ were never heard of again. That revenue was pissed away in an artificially low rate of income tax, and in supporting the non-working class created by Thatcher's policies.
People forget bad times, but I had three small children during the 80s and it was heartbreaking trying to bring them up on a pittance because there were 500 applicants for every job, and realistically - as a rural dweller, no chance of a job. I paid attention at the time and the general thought was that - in the case of the miners - every miner's job was susidised to the tune of 8 pounds/week. Thatcher threw all of those miners on the dole and proceeded to give them much more than 8 pounds/week - when miners couldn't spend like they used to, local businesses went down, leaving more to claim on the broo. A lot of those people are now retired, never having worked another day. We now have no deep mining industry, despite many pits being profitable.
There is no doubt that the unions needed brought down a peg, but emasculating them was not necessary, this happened in other industries too.
Ravenscraig Steel Works in Motherwell, was profitable and in the years up to it's closure broke production records almost weekly. It was shut with the loss of countless ancillary jobs. Thatcher and her government of yes men crucified industry in this way, up and down the country. The social cost of her failed economic experiment is still being calculated, and before you protest, her experiment did fail. Without North Sea Oil revenues to bail her out, she'd have bankrupted Britain.
As things stand, and I repeat myself here, there is no tangible benefit from all of the billions of oil revenue.
Her government had a once in a millennium chance to improve the lot of our countries and blew it, not in trying to improve things, but in an economic experiment which would, and they knew it would, incur massive social cost. She, and they, didn't give a fuck. If that makes her a great P.M. then she is great. For anyone with a smidgeon of common sense, she was an abject failure.

1984 Miner's Strike saw 300 arrests in one day at Ravenscraig - Wishaw Press

This article sheds new light on some the things madaxeman has said. In brief Margaret Thatcher fought tooth and nail to keep Ravenscraig OPEN, not to close it down as so many working class scottish miners wanted.

Let me repeat that Margaret Thatcher fought tooth and nail to keep Ravenscraig OPEN.

Ravenscraig remained open until 1992 - after Margaret Thatcher left office.


Also to repeat Britain went to the IMF for funding in 1976 because we were bankrupt. The social experiment of socalism failed in this country and we had to sell off or close down heavy loss making industries. This actually started before 1979 when Thatcher was elected.

Jim Callaghan started the closures - an example of which was the east moor steel works in Cardiff.

GKN's East Moors Steelworks, Cardiff - in 1978, the year of closure | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

So Madaxeman - you constantly say communities were needlessly destroyed - can you give some specific examples to validate your point.

Also if Thatcher was not the best Prime Minister the Uk has had - Who was? You still have not answered this.

[madaxeman]

Originally Posted by Colbro

You still have not answered this.

Just as you haven't addressed this:

there is no justification for the social cost of her policies that'll mean squat to anyone with a brain and a social conscience.

It's pointless arguing with you because all you're interested in is statistics which you think back up your argument.

There are thousands of mining communities which are still devastated as a result of Thatchers policies. There are probably several hundred within 30 miles of where I live, and I'm sure I told you before.

I have no idea who the best ever prime minister was. From my limited knowledge I'd nominate Churchill.

The best prime minister we never had was John Smith.

[Colbro]

It's pointless arguing with you because all you're interested in is statistics which you think back up your argument

What a strange thing to say. Firstly they are called FACTS and I freely admit to basing my opinion on facts - the alternative is to be full of shit.

there is no justification for the social cost of her policies that'll mean squat to anyone with a brain and a social conscience.

Britain was bankrupt in 1976. We had no money to subsidise loss making industries. Been said numerous times and you can't inform me where the money would come from.

there is no justification for the social cost of her policies that'll mean squat to anyone with a brain and a social conscience.

This is just your opinion and is not based on any facts whatsoever and instead is just an expression of raw emotion. However, it is basically all you have left as you have been unable to point forward a valid point based on any facts at all in this thread.

So if you want me to comment on this then let me break it down into three parts.

"the social cost of her policies"
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this and I don't think you do either given (for example) your confusion over what really happened in Ravenscraig amongst other things. If you are trying to say that jobs were lost which have never been replaced or something along these lines all I can say is utter rubbish.
There are tens of thousands of jobs available in the UK which British peope do not want to do. The problem is so bad we have to employ people fron Poland and the other eastern block countries to do these jobs.
The problem is not a "social cost" but a change in lifestyle choice where people are now happy to live of the state rather than work.
This is the opposite of what "Thatcherism" was all about.

"Anyone with a brain"
Anyone with a brain wil base their opinions on the facts. If the facts show that their opinion is wrong anyone with a brain will change their opinion so that the facts back their opinion up

"social conscience"
Lets look at what really happened at Ravenscraig as highlighted by my last post. The miners, who lets not forget were on strike illegally and without a ballot, tried their hardest to jepodise the jobs of thousands of steel workers at Ravenscraig. They used levels of violence and extreme intimidation on people whose only crime was to want to go to work to support their families.
These sort of tactics were common place during the miners strike.
Margaret Thatcher refused to be intimidated by these tactics and made sure that anybody who wanted to work was able to do so.
So when you say "social conscience" who do you want to win at Ravenscraig. The (law breaking) miners or the people who want to work?

[Steve_uk]

I've read these threads and there is right and wrong on both sides. Firstly could we show some repect as human beings to fellow-human beings:I don't want any old person to "snuff it"...the last I read she had had a series of minor strokes and could hardly speak. She was born with no privilege, worked hard throughout her life,had a punishing work schedule and was the first woman to achieve the office of Prime Minister,which she achieved on merit and not as the result of any all-woman short-list selection procedure.

That said the record becomes unclear. Economically the average Brit was paying more tax in 1992 than he or she was in 1979. This is because only the direct taxes were reduced,so if you kept your job you were fine...however find yourself unemployed and you would have discovered how miserable life could become. Personally I have no time for extremes,whether it's the unfair Poll Tax,the abolition of workers' rights at GCHQ, or the miners attempting through power-cut blackmail in the 1970s and 1980s to secure lifetime employment with wages at the top of the industrial workers' league.

The polarity served no-one. Some nationalised industries were overmanned and inefficient;others like BP should never have been sold off-just imagine the richest country in Europe-Norway,selling its oil fields. The policy would attract ridicule.One wonders why,having made industries like British gas profitable again,we can't at least own part of it on behalf of the nation. Why we need multi-companies competing with all the bureaucracy of the regulator when there's only one gas pipe defeats me.The irony of the bitterness of the 1980s is we never had a proper debate on the efficiency and viability of all these industries.

Back to Thatcher again,since this was the subject of the thread. She's a product of her own environment,someone who knows only work,finds it difficult to socialize or relax,who like many scientists puts everyone into a slot and can't imagine them deviating from it...I'm not even sure whether she knew she was creating mass unemployment,though I'm sure her co-conspirator Keith Joseph knew only too well. Just look at her children: Mark is a convicted criminal who can't get to visit his kids in America,Carol is oblivious to the racist remarks she makes at the BBC TV green room. They were all in a world of their own.

Society in the 1980s was changing and I think it's fair to say that Thatcher acted as a catalyst to this change. Some people might look back nostalgically and with some justification to the time when dad was the breadwinner and his salary kept the family,mum cooked proper meals and where mealtimes were a social occasion,families talked to one another without having to take headphones off their children,where a blackberry was something you picked on a Sunday afternoon and tucked in to a pie made by mum at tea time. A society where people knew their neighbours,where the teacher and the policeman had automatic respect and where small ministrations like offering your seat to an elderly person on public transport were the norm,where "please" and "thank you" emanated from children's lips,children rarely sent home or "excluded" from school,because,you see,people had time for each other,where anti-social behaviour was rare,as was drug-taking or racking up debt,in an enervating effort to keep up with the Jones'..

I don't have any answers..I do think hard work should be rewarded and I don't have a chip on my shoulder about the working class or the Eton-educated toffs,many of whom have spent their teenage years doing prep just as I as a product of an English grammar school spent many evenings on time-consuming homework unknown of in many schools today. I do know that the feeling of division within a society is not good,that a Scandinavian-style model is preferable to the American system,and that criminalising young people in the riots born barely in the twenty first century is only another sign of despair,of where we have gone wrong.