Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher Thatcher has died

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » 08 Apr 2013, 21:04

I like to think that politicians have good motives, even if they are sometimes poor judges of what is good for the people. I can't fit that to Thatcher, she was extremely clever and must have understood what her actions would do to people. She didn't care.

I'm not happy that she's dead, I don't believe in the death sentence or god, but I am happy that she's not in power.

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 08 Apr 2013, 21:13

Ok, for all these people who say the policies were vile, etc. What would you have done differently (everything isn't any answer btw)? how would your policies have improved things over what actually happened?

Imo, some things shouldn't ever have been in the government's hands, steel, british leyland, for example. Utilities (esp. water) should never have gone - maybe as non-profit entities separate from government interference. BT... it's not a utility imo, they should have separated the infrastructure from the customer facing part though and left the infrastructure in public or non-profit hands and allow it to deal with other companies to quickly remove the monopoly.

You do realise that even without Thatcher, we still wouldn't have much industry by now don't you? The decline might have been slower but the end result would have been the same, if not worse. Lack of investment in uk industry for decades left it a shell of what it was. That didn't happen from 79-90, it happened from before WW2. Other countries modernised their industry whereas ours didn't. What did that leave us? Nothing tbh.

extractorfan · Post by **extractorfan** » 08 Apr 2013, 21:14

Catweazle wrote:I like to think that politicians have good motives, even if they are sometimes poor judges of what is good for the people. I can't fit that to Thatcher, she was extremely clever and must have understood what her actions would do to people. She didn't care.

I'm not happy that she's dead, I don't believe in the death sentence or god, but I am happy that she's not in power.

I agree except that I believe she didn't care about what her policies did, that she believed in a kind of Darwinist ideal of society, a ruthless struggle that would bring the brightest and most ambitious to the top. She thought this was good.

It was bad, but I have no reason to believe that she was evil in the way many here and elsewhere believe. Misguided,yes. But honest, to a point that no politician has been since. She believed in what she was doing which maybe was the source of her charisma.

Why are not the people who supported her as deserving of hate?

I don't like overt displays of hatred, but am intrigued by it.

Post by **clv101** » 08 Apr 2013, 21:19

I think we've covered most of these groups...

extractorfan · Post by **extractorfan** » 08 Apr 2013, 21:19

cubes wrote:Ok, for all these people who say the policies were vile, etc. What would you have done differently (everything isn't any answer btw)? how would your policies have improved things over what actually happened?

Imo, some things shouldn't ever have been in the government's hands, steel, british leyland, for example. Utilities (esp. water) should never have gone - maybe as non-profit entities separate from government interference. BT... it's not a utility imo, they should have separated the infrastructure from the customer facing part though and left the infrastructure in public or non-profit hands and allow it to deal with other companies to quickly remove the monopoly.

I don't think it necessarily matters if industry doesn't run at a profit, better to subsidise industry than to subsidise people sitting on their arses or the wages of the service industries.

Although something that occurs, that I eluded to in a earlier post. These industries she destroyed (which she did) were unsustainable industries based on the expectation of infinite growth from finite resources, so anyone here were they in power, would have presumably curtailed the productivity of those communities that Thatcher destroyed for what? The wrong reasons?

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 08 Apr 2013, 21:47

Hahaha Chris very good!

You missed one group out though (below)

Smart arses placing people into groups and posting pie charts on web forums!

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 08 Apr 2013, 21:50

extractorfan wrote:
Catweazle wrote:I like to think that politicians have good motives, even if they are sometimes poor judges of what is good for the people. I can't fit that to Thatcher, she was extremely clever and must have understood what her actions would do to people. She didn't care.

I'm not happy that she's dead, I don't believe in the death sentence or god, but I am happy that she's not in power.
I agree except that I believe she didn't care about what her policies did, that she believed in a kind of Darwinist ideal of society, a ruthless struggle that would bring the brightest and most ambitious to the top. She thought this was good.

It was bad, but I have no reason to believe that she was evil in the way many here and elsewhere believe. Misguided,yes. But honest, to a point that no politician has been since. She believed in what she was doing which maybe was the source of her charisma.

Why are not the people who supported her as deserving of hate?

I don't like overt displays of hatred, but am intrigued by it.

E, how old are you and where were you brought up? I'm not looking for a fight mate. I just would like to know because it is relevant to this topic.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 08 Apr 2013, 21:53

extractorfan wrote: I don't think it necessarily matters if industry doesn't run at a profit, better to subsidise industry than to subsidise people sitting on their arses or the wages of the service industries.

Although something that occurs, that I eluded to in a earlier post. These industries she destroyed (which she did) were unsustainable industries based on the expectation of infinite growth from finite resources, so anyone here were they in power, would have presumably curtailed the productivity of those communities that Thatcher destroyed for what? The wrong reasons?

Absolutely for the wrong reasons. Her motivations were thoroughly ideological, which is part of the explanation as to why she is so profoundly despised.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 08 Apr 2013, 21:59

cubes wrote:Ok, for all these people who say the policies were vile, etc. What would you have done differently (everything isn't any answer btw)? how would your policies have improved things over what actually happened?

For me, that question is impossible to answer. It's impossible because the sort of policies I'd have implemented would not have been able to muster more than 10% of a democratic vote, even if I'd been able to force the mainstream media to report facts all the time instead of politically-motivated fiction, if you know what I mean. In other words, I couldn't have implemented them unless the UK was a dictatorship.

You do realise that even without Thatcher, we still wouldn't have much industry by now don't you? The decline might have been slower but the end result would have been the same, if not worse. Lack of investment in uk industry for decades left it a shell of what it was. That didn't happen from 79-90, it happened from before WW2. Other countries modernised their industry whereas ours didn't. What did that leave us? Nothing tbh.

How come Germany still has a thriving industrial sector, but the UK is utterly dependent on Bankstering? Why couldn't we have done what they do?

extractorfan · Post by **extractorfan** » 08 Apr 2013, 21:59

stevecook172001 wrote:
extractorfan wrote:
Catweazle wrote:I like to think that politicians have good motives, even if they are sometimes poor judges of what is good for the people. I can't fit that to Thatcher, she was extremely clever and must have understood what her actions would do to people. She didn't care.

I'm not happy that she's dead, I don't believe in the death sentence or god, but I am happy that she's not in power.
I agree except that I believe she didn't care about what her policies did, that she believed in a kind of Darwinist ideal of society, a ruthless struggle that would bring the brightest and most ambitious to the top. She thought this was good.

It was bad, but I have no reason to believe that she was evil in the way many here and elsewhere believe. Misguided,yes. But honest, to a point that no politician has been since. She believed in what she was doing which maybe was the source of her charisma.

Why are not the people who supported her as deserving of hate?

I don't like overt displays of hatred, but am intrigued by it.
E, how old are you and where were you brought up? I'm not looking for a fight mate. I just would like to know because it is relevant to this topic.

I'm 38. And no problem fight or not, you are eloquent with your posts.

Was brought up in the north west, my father blamed thatcher for destroying industry but my peers supported her, my council house friends who had bought at great discount their homes, those that dreamed of being stock exchange button boys, those that wanted to be young entrepreneurs.

I don't think my dad was right, he was just on the losing side as I would have been.

I saw what the policies did, I was aware enough to see through the spin, I was ridiculed enough to think F--k it you get what you deserve.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 08 Apr 2013, 22:20

extractorfan wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:
extractorfan wrote: I agree except that I believe she didn't care about what her policies did, that she believed in a kind of Darwinist ideal of society, a ruthless struggle that would bring the brightest and most ambitious to the top. She thought this was good.

It was bad, but I have no reason to believe that she was evil in the way many here and elsewhere believe. Misguided,yes. But honest, to a point that no politician has been since. She believed in what she was doing which maybe was the source of her charisma.

Why are not the people who supported her as deserving of hate?

I don't like overt displays of hatred, but am intrigued by it.
E, how old are you and where were you brought up? I'm not looking for a fight mate. I just would like to know because it is relevant to this topic.
I'm 38. And no problem fight or not, you are eloquent with your posts.

Was brought up in the north west, my father blamed thatcher for destroying industry but my peers supported her, my council house friends who had bought at great discount their homes, those that dreamed of being stock exchange button boys, those that wanted to be young entrepreneurs.

I don't think my dad was right, he was just on the losing side as I would have been.

I saw what the policies did, I was aware enough to see through the spin, I was ridiculed enough to think **** it you get what you deserve.

I guess I'm with your Dad on this one E

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 08 Apr 2013, 22:23

UndercoverElephant wrote:
cubes wrote:Ok, for all these people who say the policies were vile, etc. What would you have done differently (everything isn't any answer btw)? how would your policies have improved things over what actually happened?
For me, that question is impossible to answer. It's impossible because the sort of policies I'd have implemented would not have been able to muster more than 10% of a democratic vote, even if I'd been able to force the mainstream media to report facts all the time instead of politically-motivated fiction, if you know what I mean. In other words, I couldn't have implemented them unless the UK was a dictatorship.

You do realise that even without Thatcher, we still wouldn't have much industry by now don't you? The decline might have been slower but the end result would have been the same, if not worse. Lack of investment in uk industry for decades left it a shell of what it was. That didn't happen from 79-90, it happened from before WW2. Other countries modernised their industry whereas ours didn't. What did that leave us? Nothing tbh.
How come Germany still has a thriving industrial sector, but the UK is utterly dependent on Bankstering? Why couldn't we have done what they do?

Because Thatcher and her ilk allowed and encouraged this country to be run by conmen, bullies and spivs with an eye only on the short term bottom line.

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 08 Apr 2013, 22:45

UndercoverElephant wrote:
How come Germany still has a thriving industrial sector, but the UK is utterly dependent on Bankstering? Why couldn't we have done what they do?

That's a good question. I suspect it's partly decades of bad government policy encouraging short-term thinking and partly directors of large companies picked because they went to the right school rather than being capable of running a company. I doubt either has changed much.

stevecook172001 wrote: Because Thatcher and her ilk allowed and encouraged this country to be run by conmen, bullies and spivs with an eye only on the short term bottom line.

UK industry was deep in shit long before Thatcher came along. Short-termism had been around for decades. Tbh, I doubt anyone at the top actually changed much.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 08 Apr 2013, 23:10

UndercoverElephant wrote: How come Germany still has a thriving industrial sector, but the UK is utterly dependent on Bankstering? Why couldn't we have done what they do?

Mittelstand.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelstand

the_lyniezian · Post by **the_lyniezian** » 09 Apr 2013, 00:22

Aurora wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote: How come Germany still has a thriving industrial sector, but the UK is utterly dependent on Bankstering? Why couldn't we have done what they do?
Mittelstand.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelstand

I've heard of that. It seems one key strength is being able to focus on the long-term rather than the quick buck (perhaps possible as they're privately owned in the full sense).