Thatcher

Can't recommend any books that think the eighties were a good period, we had a Cyborg called Thatcher with a brain of a Dalek and a stone heart as dictator and we still suffer today because of the way she ruined the social fabric of our country!
 
strokey tone said:
Can't recommend any books that think the eighties were a good period, we had a Cyborg called Thatcher with a brain of a Dalek and a stone heart as dictator and we still suffer today because of the way she ruined the social fabric of our country!
Click to expand...

Thanks that was insightful but I'm looking for something a little less hysterical and a little more balanced
 
The sort of people that could have done a much better job for Britain than Thatcher just won't put themselves forward. She was very ignorant of the wider social and international issues and so made callous mistakes, but the miners/unions had it coming after their antics. Why should they have the power to get rid of Govts they disliked e.g. Heath. She was right to put them in their place a bit. Such revelations of the life of luxury of present Union bosses have leaked out. Expensive holidays abroad ( Crowe the rail union boss ), living rent free in manor houses ( Scargill ) etc. No snow white saints there imho.

If the business bosses had treated their workers properly there would be no need for the unions and such companies as Br. Leyland would have had a much better chance to survive and prosper, but sadly greed and meaness ruled supreme.
 
Last edited:
Pat494 said:
The sort of people that could have done a much better job for Britain than Thatcher just won't put themselves forward. She was very ignorant of the wider social and international issues and so made callous mistakes, but the miners/unions had it coming after their antics. Why should they have the power to get rid of Govts they disliked e.g. Heath. She was right to put them in their place a bit. Such revelations of the life of luxury of present Union bosses have leaked out. Expensive holidays abroad ( Crowe the rail union boss ), living rent free in manor houses ( Scargill ) etc. No snow white saints there imho.

If the business bosses had treated their workers properly there would be no need for the unions and such companies as Br. Leyland would have had a much better chance to survive and prosper, but sadly greed and meaness ruled supreme.
Click to expand...

Much better. So you think it's the bosses fault, they mistreated the workers who then went on strike and started to take the **** which people then had enough of so voted in thatcher who then "ruined the social fabric if the country"?
 
Pat494 said:
The sort of people that could have done a much better job for Britain than Thatcher just won't put themselves forward. She was very ignorant of the wider social and international issues and so made callous mistakes, but the miners/unions had it coming after their antics. Why should they have the power to get rid of Govts they disliked e.g. Heath. She was right to put them in their place a bit. Such revelations of the life of luxury of present Union bosses have leaked out. Expensive holidays abroad ( Crowe the rail union boss ), living rent free in manor houses ( Scargill ) etc. No snow white saints there imho.

If the business bosses had treated their workers properly there would be no need for the unions and such companies as Br. Leyland would have had a much better chance to survive and prosper, but sadly greed and meaness ruled supreme.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, greed , meaness and corruption are part of dangers for any organisation that manages money. We will never be free of it. I am glad that you appreciate that corruption exists where you live, apart from Spain. :)

Corruption = a person, or group of persons, who control a sum of money.

That includes anyone who looks after charity income, don't let's forget them. I have read that only 10% gets to those intended to receive it.

Is anyone controlling public spending in the latest flooding crisis? How did councils approve 200,000 new houses, this century, on flood plains? Was money passed without receipts , anywhere? I know that here, in Spain, a lot of construction permits have been given on receipt of "unofficial" money.

We are, all, paying taxes over which we have no control. How to put an end to that? I don't know, because it is a question of trustworthy, incorruptable people being in charge. That is a scarce commodity, these days.
 
Last edited:
Splitlink said:
Unfortunately, greed , meaness and corruption are part of dangers for any organisation that manages money. We will never be free of it. I am glad that you appreciate that corruption exists where you live, apart from Spain. :)

Corruption = a person, or group of persons, who control a sum of money.

That includes anyone who looks after charity income, don't let's forget them. I have read that only 10% gets to those intended to receive it.

Is anyone controlling public spending in the latest flooding crisis? How did councils approve 200,000 new houses, this century, on flood plains? Was money passed without receipts , anywhere? I know that here, in Spain, a lot of construction permits have been given on receipt of "unofficial" money.

We are, all, paying taxes over which we have no control. How to put an end to that? I don't know, because it is a question of trustworthy, incorruptable people being in charge. That is a scarce commodity, these days.
Click to expand...

I guess you mean mis-control.

Bring back Alcatraz imho
 
Pat494 said:
I guess you mean mis-control.

Bring back Alcatraz imho
Click to expand...

I think that we agree about the big fish. What about the office clerk in charge of stamps and ballpens, and who gives them away for future favours, or takes them home. That is so small an offence that he would not dream that he was corrupt, or thievng. This runs through all nations, and it runs all through society, worldwide.
 
I have just been watching a story about crime in the USA. There are 2.3 million prisoners. So many in fact that the state system couldn't cope. So now there is a thriving business of private prisons and associated businesses.
This is more than Russia and China combined but the latter does execute a lot. Maybe there should be ongoing incentives there to reform or else.
 
I thought a while about making this post, I know it could cause a fuss, that's not my intention. I have heard this criticism of MT many times and always struggled to understand what people mean when they say she "ruined the social fabric of this country". Can anybody explain? How do you quantify something like that?

I should state so I don't get accused of trolling that as somebody who was brought up in a country with no welfare state (at the time) and had the idea of being self-sufficient ingrained in me from an early age, arriving in this country with £600 (half of it borrowed) and the clothes on my back, like many of the 150,000 immigrants who arrive here every year I think it's a ****ing great country, and when I read the below statement for the first time I must admit it struck a chord with me:

"I came to office with one deliberate intent: to change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society – from a give-it-to-me, to a do-it-yourself nation. A get-up-and-go, instead of a sit-back-and-wait-for-it Britain"

Please treat this post as a request for clarification rather than MT cheer leading. I don't have the full story, I was not negatively affected by any of her policies, I'm trying to understand the situation, everything I know about her I know I have read in either the Guardian or the Telegraph (I try to get my news from both sides of the fence) although I do feel some the criticisms of her are...well, irrational.
 
China Diapers said:
I thought a while about making this post, I know it could cause a fuss, that's not my intention. I have heard this criticism of MT many times and always struggled to understand what people mean when they say she "ruined the social fabric of this country". Can anybody explain? How do you quantify something like that?

I should state so I don't get accused of trolling that as somebody who was brought up in a country with no welfare state (at the time) and had the idea of being self-sufficient ingrained in me from an early age, arriving in this country with £600 (half of it borrowed) and the clothes on my back, like many of the 150,000 immigrants who arrive here every year I think it's a ****ing great country, and when I read the below statement for the first time I must admit it struck a chord with me:

"I came to office with one deliberate intent: to change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society – from a give-it-to-me, to a do-it-yourself nation. A get-up-and-go, instead of a sit-back-and-wait-for-it Britain"

Please treat this post as a request for clarification rather than MT cheer leading. I don't have the full story, I was not negatively affected by any of her policies, I'm trying to understand the situation, everything I know about her I know I have read in either the Guardian or the Telegraph (I try to get my news from both sides of the fence) although I do feel some the criticisms of her are...well, irrational.
Click to expand...


Is it not better to analyse economic policies and the outcome rather than regurgitating all that has been said re:socialism v capitalism debate. Your question is skewed, biased and not objective at all imo.

If you have come over from a state with no welfare to one where there is, have you not voted with your feet already? Why make the move? Are you saying welfare state is not necessary, is abused or invaluable and aids healthy capitalism?

If you look at all the leading countries in the world and compare results you can draw your own conclusions on what's similar and what not?

Has very little to do with individuals. It's more about the political system of organisation in the distribution of scarce resources.
 
Alright she has been and not completely gone. After all we are talking about her. Remember she was a product of the 1970s. The old era of respect was coming to an end. Strikes were a weekly occurence. If it wasn't rail, it was docks, mines, cars, steel etc. Britain let slip a great opportunity to stay ahead.
I see now some are worried that politicians have got too stroppy and doing a poor job. Putin got an extra term of office, why not others. The military are always lurking in the wings. But they could make a move for power as in Egypt. Not much tut tutting from the hypocrits in Washington when it suited them.

And so on

As Churchill memorably said democracy is bad but as yet noone has come up with anything better.
 
Atilla said:
Is it not better to analyse economic policies and the outcome rather than regurgitating all that has been said re:socialism v capitalism debate. Your question is skewed, biased and not objective at all imo.

If you have come over from a state with no welfare to one where there is, have you not voted with your feet already? Why make the move? Are you saying welfare state is not necessary, is abused or invaluable and aids healthy capitalism?

If you look at all the leading countries in the world and compare results you can draw your own conclusions on what's similar and what not?

Has very little to do with individuals. It's more about the political system of organisation in the distribution of scarce resources.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I have a problem with the welfare state, I didn't make this capitalism v socialism. If you read my post properly you will see that I am analyzing economic policies on their outcomes, I see a country where hundreds of thousands of people move every year because they believe they will have better opportunities. If you think Maggie has made life difficult for you why don't you go for a walk around the slums of one of those third world countries the next time you take an exotic holiday, high five the locals and tell them you just got off a long haul flight from London and are an oppressed underclass just like them.

I agree with you this is about "the political system of organisation in the distribution of scarce resources", that's self-evident.

As nice enough of a guy as you are Atilla I am not interested in discussing this with you as I don't think you are capable of being objective on the subject and I suspect it won't be long before the ad hominems appear if I was to continue, I am going to put you on ignore if I can figure out how, please try not to take offence at that.
 
China Diapers said:
I didn't say I have a problem with the welfare state, I didn't make this capitalism v socialism. If you read my post properly you will see that I am analyzing economic policies on their outcomes, I see a country where hundreds of thousands of people move every year because they believe they will have better opportunities. If you think Maggie has made life difficult for you why don't you go for a walk around the slums of one of those third world countries the next time you take an exotic holiday, high five the locals and tell them you just got off a long haul flight from London and are an oppressed underclass just like them. I agree with you this is about "the political system of organisation in the distribution of scarce resources", that's self-evident.

As nice enough of a guy as you are Atilla I am not interested in discussing this with you as I don't think you are capable of being objective on the subject and I suspect it won't be long before the ad hominems appear if I was to continue, I am going to put you on ignore if I can figure out how, please try not to take offence at that.
Click to expand...

You can't use that as an argument. People in wealthy countries do not compare their own standard of living with that of a third world one. They compare one decade, or government, with another. That is the way life works.

MT came into power by deposing Ted Heath of Conservative leadership. She was a strident politician, I could see her veins standing out, when she got going, and she believed in Britain, as a nation, above any other person, organisation or country.This caused lots of individuals to get trodden on. but don't anyone tell me that Labour does not tread on anyone that gets in its way.The Miners' strike was something that the whole country was wanting her to crush and she used that and privatisation to get everyone behing her. The Falkland's War and the European budget rebate made the country feel great, again.

Privatisation of public services (not the splitting up and sale of BL) was, IMO, her big mistake.

Did I like her? No. How can you like anyone like that? God help anyone who disagreed with her. But that is the way of all good leaders. They are not there to be liked.
 
Splitlink said:
You can't use that as an argument. People in wealthy countries do not compare their own standard of living with that of a third world one. They compare one decade, or government, with another. That is the way life works.

MT came into power by deposing Ted Heath of Conservative leadership. She was a strident politician, I could see her veins standing out, when she got going, and she believed in Britain, as a nation, above any other person, organisation or country.This caused lots of individuals to get trodden on. but don't anyone tell me that Labour does not tread on anyone that gets in its way.The Miners' strike was something that the whole country was wanting her to crush and she used that and privatisation to get everyone behing her. The Falkland's War and the European budget rebate made the country feel great, again.

Privatisation of public services (not the splitting up and sale of BL) was, IMO, her big mistake.

Did I like her? No. How can you like anyone like that? God help anyone who disagreed with her. But that is the way of all good leaders. They are not there to be liked.
Click to expand...

You're right, it's not a good argument and of course people who lived through it will have a different perspective it just strikes me as a bit dramatic the way people make out she has destroyed the country when from my observations most people seem to be doing relatively OK, sure there are problems that need to be addressed I am very aware of that.

My brother in law for example, well paying job, holiday house in Portugal, eats out at nice restaurants 3 times a week, nice clothes and piles of boxes of shoes he's never worn, but he's "working class" and sits talking nostalgically about the 70's and how Thatcher shafted him and this country. I just don't buy it.

Again I am in no way putting Thatcher on a pedestal, but possibly some perspective is in order.
 
Last edited:
China Diapers said:
You're right, it's not a good argument and of course people who lived through it will have a different perspective it just strikes me as a bit dramatic the way people make out she has destroyed the country when from my observations most people seem to be doing relatively OK, sure there are problems that need to be addressed I am very aware of that.

My brother in law for example, well paying job, holiday house in Portugal, eats out at nice restaurants 3 times a week, nice clothes and piles of boxes of shoes he's never worn, but he's "working class" and sits talking nostalgically about the 70's and how Thatcher shafted him and this country. I just don't buy it.

Again I am in no way putting Thatcher on a pedestal, but possibly some perspective is in order.
Click to expand...

No, I don't buy it, either. She did not shaft the country, she changed it. The unions have never been the same. Is that a good thing? It depends on which side you are on. There are a lot of injustices, today, as there were, then. As with all politics, it is a bucket of worms, but I do not blame the greed of the finacial sector on her policies. I do believe that her new style was taken advantage of by sharp, greedy, businressmen and that the cult of looking after oneself became the watchword. Do you remember building societies? They were all, greedily, snatched up by the banks because of the assets. However, the owners of those societies were willing to sell their shares to the highest bidder, so this goes both ways. But these same societies have caused serious damage to the finncial system. Halifax, Co-op, Northern Rock are some. People have short memories, though.
 
China Diapers said:
I didn't say I have a problem with the welfare state, I didn't make this capitalism v socialism. If you read my post properly you will see that I am analyzing economic policies on their outcomes, I see a country where hundreds of thousands of people move every year because they believe they will have better opportunities. If you think Maggie has made life difficult for you why don't you go for a walk around the slums of one of those third world countries the next time you take an exotic holiday, high five the locals and tell them you just got off a long haul flight from London and are an oppressed underclass just like them.

I agree with you this is about "the political system of organisation in the distribution of scarce resources", that's self-evident.

As nice enough of a guy as you are Atilla I am not interested in discussing this with you as I don't think you are capable of being objective on the subject and I suspect it won't be long before the ad hominems appear if I was to continue, I am going to put you on ignore if I can figure out how, please try not to take offence at that.
Click to expand...

Hi China Diapers,

You state you would like to have clarification and understand the situation and try and get news from both sides of the fence and then you put out a reply such as this. You are already opinionated and was obvious from your initial blogg. Same ilk as the now rusting lady. :idea:

Moreover, feel free to put me on ignore or simply do not reply to my bloggs. Not sure what the difference is?


1. How are you analysing economic policies or their outcomes? I have re-read your original blogg again and can see no reference to any of her economic policies???

2. You are dramatising comparing UK to slums. Why not compare it to Germany France, Italy or Spain. They all came out of the 80s recession much faster than we did and had less pain. UK recession was much deeper, recovery was very late and export led.

3. I'm not a nice guy and don't need you to patronise me.

4. I'm not oppressed or underclass and never said so. Working class bottom up yes but oppressed and underclass never. In fact I consider my self very privileged to have had a full education on a full grant (means tested) and the reason why I support the same for future young generations. Said so on these bloggs many times too. I am honest about my views. What medication are you on? :LOL:

5. I'm not a socialist or communist either. Some people simply do not understand one can have free enterprising bias BUT with an element of social conscience. Each to their own.


I'm not interested in whether you wish to discuss anything with me or not. These are public bloggs and subsequently I will reply to any blogg I choose to.


Good to know you are selective about hearing two sides of the argument... Your really funny :cheesy:
 
Time to Respectfully Draw The Iron Curtains Shut For The Last Time

Hey There Hun,

Woooah Plenty of Panty-Twistage going on here right ? :D

Where's the love....this fine sunny spring Friday morning ?
I think everyone needs to take a chill-pill and calm down a bit.
I don't think China Diapers deserves that level of abuse :mad: ....for offering up an opinion, then again there is offering an opinion, and shooting one out a cannon :-0 China D, I dare say MT would be proud of you :whistling

Anyhoo it can all be best summed up best in the different points of view that Merton & Sargent hold. Check this out...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRgvrGEwgh0&feature=youtube_gdata_player



Atilla said:
Hi China

Good to know you are selective about hearing two sides of the argument... Your really funny :cheesy:
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
samextra said:
Where's the love....this fine sunny spring Friday morning ?
Click to expand...
I don't have anything remotely sensible to add to this topic holding fairly strong (and necessarily covert) views as I do on politicians and government. but I'm feeling particularly pedantic this morning so I'll point out we're still technically in winter in the Northern hemisphere. Spring is a week away yet.
 
samextra said:
Hey There Hun,

Woooah Plenty of Panty-Twistage going on here right ? :D

Where's the love....this fine sunny spring Friday morning ?
I think everyone needs to take a chill-pill and calm down a bit.
I don't think China Diapers deserves that level of abuse :mad: ....for offering up an opinion, then again there is offering an opinion, and shooting one out a cannon :-0 China D, I dare say MT would be proud of you :whistling

Anyhoo it can all be best summed up best in the different points of view that Merton & Sargent hold. Check this out...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRgvrGEwgh0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Click to expand...



Your first post and you waste it on this thread. Displaying poor judgement imo...

As for room 101, yes very good, wise decision well executed. Who could possibly argue otherwise. (y)

Not sure what you mean about abuse? You guys are so touchy touchy. Apply some ointment on your delicate skins. If condition doesn't approve in two weeks go see your doctors. ;)

Enjoy all that you do :)
 
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