Thatcher

[neil324]

Something quite odd about these people who are happy that someone died.
Just shows a total lack of respect and a disregard for humanity.

Newsnight was good tonight...the normally self interested Paxman was probably reigned in.

Odd? Respect and humanity run both ways.

Interesting timing of her death. Given the current debate of welfare scroungers by the current government. With 2nd and 3rd generations from mining towns being unemployed and the likes of Germany still subsidizing it's mining industry.

 

[Atilla]

Something quite odd about these people who are happy that someone died.
Just shows a total lack of respect and a disregard for humanity.

Newsnight was good tonight...the normally self interested Paxman was probably reigned in.

Total lack of respect and a disregard for humanity.

I listened to some accounts from Welsh miners and it wasn't pretty. Divorce, drink, drugs and suicide.

You should question what drives people on both sides to this kind of depravity. She may have believed she was doing the right thing but didn't listen to events on the ground or advice she was dealt.

Still the highest unemployment in the area. UK still needs coal and imports.

UK Coal | Why coal | Need for coal | The need for coal

Go figure.

Total disregard for humanity you say??? add common sense and reason to that!

 

[counter_violent]

Yes I remember it like it was yesterday.
Heres a quick summary for ya.

Scargill set himself on a do or die crash course with Maggie.
He was never going to be a match for her. The end.

 

[pboyles]

Total lack of respect and a disregard for humanity.

I listened to some accounts from Welsh miners and it wasn't pretty. Divorce, drink, drugs and suicide.

You should question what drives people on both sides to this kind of depravity. She may have believed she was doing the right thing but didn't listen to events on the ground or advice she was dealt.

Still the highest unemployment in the area. UK still needs coal and imports.

UK Coal | Why coal | Need for coal | The need for coal

Go figure.

Total disregard for humanity you say??? add common sense and reason to that!

Why did all those mines close? Just because she didn't like miners or the Welsh?

 

[neil324]

Why did all those mines close? Just because she didn't like miners or the Welsh?

Not viable?

But the problem now is the government deficit spends, producing public sector jobs in those area to replace the industry. Also paying benefits to others. The public sector is over 50% now and the benefit bill is 100b per year without the pensions.

Which in itself is not viable either as we are finding out on a crash course to default.

It's obviously a balance, but Germany subsidizes it's coal mining to this day. We don't. I know which country is the basket case and which isn't.

 

[new_trader]

It's obviously a balance, but Germany subsidizes it's coal mining to this day. We don't. I know which country is the basket case and which isn't.

So you think it should be up to the Government to try and pick which industries should survive and which shouldn't and subsidize accordingly?

Maybe the U.K should take a page out of Obama's book and back a "clean energy" company...that idiotic decision only cost taxpayers around $0.5 BILLION in losses...

 

[neil324]

So you think it should be up to the Government to try and pick which industries should survive and which shouldn't and subsidize accordingly?

Maybe the U.K should take a page out of Obama's book and back a "clean energy" company...that idiotic decision only cost taxpayers around $0.5 BILLION in losses...

They bailed the banks out?

Other countries subsidize certain industry. Germany the coal industry.

Why did much of the UK tyre industry close and European capacity stay open. Wasn't to do with labour cost was it.

Like I said it's a fine balance, we seem to have pushed to far the other way and are reaping what we sow today. With a bloated service economy reliant on ever expanding debt to feed it.

 

[new_trader]

Erm well they are with the housing market today. What's different? They bailed the banks out?

No difference. That's my point. Government shouldn't subsidize any industry.

Other countries subsidize certain industry. Germany the coal industry.

So what? Let them squander their own rescources, why should we follow?

Why did much of the UK tyre industry close and European capacity stay open. Wasn't to do with labour cost was it.

Like I said it's fine balance, we seem to have pushed to far the other way and are reaping what we sow today. With a bloated service economy reliant on ever expanding debt to feed it.

No, the problem is as you stated earlier. The U.K Government has chosen to subsidize the housing industry and we are reaping what they have sown. An entire economy that is now overly reliant on it.

 

[Atilla]

Why did all those mines close? Just because she didn't like miners or the Welsh?

Big point to make is not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

These industries we need to bring back.

Reason why the ship building and car industries went is because we did not invest in new technology and mechanisation. Now you can blame that on the unions or management.

Either way - because you can't manage a crises you do not close these industries down. That was a mistake.

The point is well made. Why bail out the banks. It had to be done - don't get me wrong. But the lack of diversification and hell bent realiance on service sector is obviously not delivering results.


Common sense and balance is key. Extreme actions on both ends of the scale is bad.

 

[pboyles]

What would you do if a coal mine ran out of coal?

 

[new_trader]

I personally would like to see a return of the Steam engine industry, didn't Britain once dominate the world? I think the U.K Government should subsidize steam engine manufacturing...then other countries would look at us with envy and demand that their Governments subsidize steam engine manufacturers! A bit of balance is what's needed...there are way too many internal combustion engines around.

 

[bbmac]

On a positive note I think her lasting positive achievement was in foreign policy - ie recognising that Gorbachev was a man ' we could do business with ' and in commending him to Reagan...Reagan effectively called the USSR's bluff by signing up to the so called Star Wars programme and increased military spending and it was Gorbachev's realisation that they could not keep pace with the west re this spending (USSR being a basket case centralised corrupt economy) that forced him to negotiate seriously, and so that ultimately led to the end of the cold war. This was really the only shining beacon in her foreign policy though - she was hopelessly wrong on South Africa and the ANC, and her Irish policy continued a disasterous status quo that prolonged Britain's involvement on that island. Re the Falklands - 30- years on we still operate a fortress Falklands policy and does anyone actually believe that is sustainable ? At the very least shared sovereignty/mineral rights will at some point result with Argentina (and that is the best solution we could hope for) because we are simply not in a position to do anything else should it arise. It is simple pragmatism.

My thoughts re Thatcher in the 2 posts I have made to this thread so far come not from being an unreconstructed socialist as some have wrongly assumed (actually I am free of any employer and Govt and rely on neither) but from some one who recognises that her central defining ideology about free markets was wrong and has been proven spectacularly so. Unlike others - I don't blame her for the death of the old labour intensive loss making heavy industries (Ship building, coal mining etc...) - Govt's don't actually create jobs - these industries were uncompetitive partly because of chronic under investment and partly due to over excessive union power and closed practices. Govt's can only create the conditions where economies can grown or contract. But through the pure monetarist policies she pursued in the early 80's whole industries, and areas of the country's industrial land estate and communities around them were laid waste on her mistaken belief that the free market would take up the slack and re-generate them - this was plainly wrong because they largely remain as they were and 2 or 3 generations on it is the same. The alternative of course was to invest in them and reform/transform them into viable industries and thus grow our manufacturing base but this she chose not to do, -because union power had to smashed for a free market capitalist model to work, regardless of social cost. It is this choice I blame for. She was a wrecker not a creator.

' Thatcher's childrens' ' kids are the problem children of today. If you remove hope, and destroy communities, the social effects live with us for a very long time. In destroying the unions we have seen an economy of haves and have nots created where inequality has grown exponentially resulting in the Low skilled low paid ' Mc jobs ' that afflict much of it today...the Govt even subsides these low paying employers by giving tax credits of Billions a year to low paid workers! - that is price of decimating the union power as opposed to reigning it in which yes -needed to happen. My central argument is that she pursued unlimited free market economics without any regard whatever to the social consequences and long term costs of those consequences. It began a 'greed is good' culture and 'to hell with society' and look where that led us.

Regardless of how well you may or may not have done in life post 1979, for those old enough I ask this simple question - do you really believe that society is a better place today than it was 30 years ago ? - and if your answer is No - who, other than our leaders can we blame ? Thatcher set the tone and was indeed transformational and every govt since has accepted her ideology - and that is the problem - it is broken and does not work - for what is the job of Govt if it is not to make a better society for all - the many not just the few, ie not just those who do well out of it, when others cannot ?

G/L

 

[new_trader]

for what is the job of Govt

Now that you asked:

The purpose of Government is to secure and protect INDIVIDUAL rights and freedoms.​

It is not the job of Government to redistribute wealth.
It is not the job of Government to try and pick industries that it thinks should get subsidies.


"That government is best which governs least."
-- Thomas Paine

The USA arose from the ashes of a very destructive Civil war to become the WORLDS leading industrial and economic superpower. It didn't happen because the Government subsidized the right industries. It succeeded through the genius of entrepreneurs and freedom.

 

[Splitlink]

Now that you asked:

The purpose of Government is to secure and protect INDIVIDUAL rights and freedoms.​

It is not the job of Government to redistribute wealth.
It is not the job of Government to try and pick industries that it thinks should get subsidies.


"That government is best which governs least."
-- Thomas Paine

The USA arose from the ashes of a very destructive Civil war to become the WORLDS leading industrial and economic superpower. It didn't happen because the Government subsidized the right industries. It succeeded through the genius of entrepreneurs and freedom.

That is never going to happen in a democracy. In fact, it is illogical to expect it to happen, because any democratic government is voted in by the majority of the people (those who bother to vote, that is) and that majority wants its government to do something. usually to the detriment of the other side, therefore the government cannot be neutral. I, at least, want my elected government to look after my interests, otherwise I would not vote for it.

Does it happen in America? The senate is constantly lobbied by interested parties that want something. Therefore the government does as it's told, mainly by capitalism. What you are saying is that a dictatorship could be least likely to meddle but that depends on the dictator.

 

[new_trader]

That is never going to happen in a democracy. In fact, it is illogical to expect it to happen, because any democratic government is voted in by the majority of the people (those who bother to vote, that is) and that majority wants its government to do something.usually to the detriment of the other side, therefore the government cannot be neutral. I, at least, want my elected government to look after my interests, otherwise I would not vote for it.

Correct. That is why some call it a MOB-ocracy, and some studies conclude it is worse than a dictatorship.

Does it happen in America? The senate is constantly lobbied by interested parties that want something. Therefore the government does as it's told, mainly by capitalism. What you are saying is that a dictatorship could be least likely to meddle but that depends on the dictator.

The U.S.A was NEVER meant to be a democracy. It was founded as a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC because the founding fathers were aware of the evils of democracy. You only need to read bbmacs post to see what they were afraid of.

 

[the hare]

What would you do if a coal mine ran out of coal?

Use it to store nuclear waste ?
Use it as secure storage for sensitive documents ?
Turn it into an an industrial heritage museum ?

 

[Liquid validity]

What would you do if a coal mine ran out of coal?

Coal Mine Drainage for Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Extraction: Proceedings and Recommendations from a Roundtable on Feasibility and Challenges | RAND

 

[Liquid validity]

Thatcher, I don't know, nothing as divisive as politics or religion,
especially with prominent figureheads.
I remember a saying I first heard years ago - if you're a tory under 30 you've got no soul.
If you're not a tory over 30 you've got no brain.
I'm 39...

Its worth noting that she arguably laid the regulatory foundations
that have allowed everyone here to be able to trade at a retail level.
You could also fairly say that would have happened anyway with the advent
of the internet.

Ultimately, my focus is on the here and now, the past is the past.
Personally, whatever happens, political , regulatory and so on,
deal with it and find a way to do whatever it is you are trying to do.
I do know however, that much of Thatchers influence is still evident
with the tories today.
For those reasons - namely not wanting anything to do with the Euro,
and wanting to stop the trans tax in the UK, for purely selfish reasons,
thats good enough for me.

For me Thatcher did good and bad things, depending on your
personal circumstances.
Whatever, at least she never shied away from doing something and
making tough decisions.
I'm neither a fan or a critic, but she was certainly a pivotal figure in the
20th century, that much is certain.

 

[Splitlink]

I believe that Thatcher was the product of a Conservative party that had lost an election. That she had radical ideas, there is no doubt about that. Remember that Hitler was elected, too.

Those who are old enough, will remember the fifties,sixties and seventies, when one had dock strikes, bus strikes, British Leyland strikes, building strikes and the unions dominated all aspects of working life. A bus garage only needed seven or eight at a meeting to bring the whole lot out on strike.

That kind of atmosphere had to breed resentment among the longsuffering public and, in that, Margaret Thatcher found fertile soil to sprout.

We should not blame her for being what she was. We should blame union power for enabling her to happen. When she arrived they found that they had a tiger by the tail and a furious one, at that. It took a whole year to break the miners strike. She could not have done that alone.

 

[timsk]

I remember a saying I first heard years ago - if you're a tory under 30 you've got no soul.
If you're not a tory over 30 you've got no brain.
I'm 39...

Hi L v,
Are you a Tory and, if so, have you been one for 10 years or more? Could be bad news! Judging by the quality of your posts, and by the yardstick you offer here, I'd say you're definitely not a Tory.

Tim.