Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher Thatcher has died

Post by **clv101** » 09 Apr 2013, 06:13

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?

UK industry/manufacturing is still there, we're something like the 7th or 8th largest manufacturing country in the world. What's changed over the last 30 odd years is that it doesn't employ as many people as it did. The stuff we manufacture is the extreme high-end. Bespoke scientific and medical equipment, state of the art weapons etc... Our industrial sector is still there, it's just not so obvious unless you're personally involved in it.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 09 Apr 2013, 07:40

Did she propel us towards or steer us away from humanities existential crisis of global warming?

Gave a couple of speeches to international audiences on climate change and (for ulterior motives) closed the cola mines. So that's one and a half ticks.

The climate speeches were backed with support for scientific research but there was little translation into government policy for mitigation. North Sea oil was squandered as if it were a renewable resource and economic growth the overriding mantra.

On balance...nah there is no balance...she was a disaster and all the more culpable for understanding the science and yet doing the wrong thing. She didn't even have ignorance and stupidity as excuses.

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 09 Apr 2013, 08:23

North Sea oil was squandered as if it were a renewable resource and economic growth the overriding mantra.

Yes -also a lot of people forget that she lucked out with the discovery of North Sea Oil on her watch.

Post by **adam2** » 09 Apr 2013, 10:34

Closing the cola mines was a most commendable move, it now being well understood that cola is fattening and causes tooth decay.

MrG · Post by **MrG** » 09 Apr 2013, 11:56

extractorfan wrote:celebrating someone's death for the views they held and got elected for by a well informed electorate is pretty shocking, even revolting.

Oh, but I'm under 60 so don't have a valid opinion on such matters unless of course they align with the socialist bias on these boards.

I nearly p1ssed myself when I read the comment about under 60's (don't remember who made it)

If your under the age of 35 then you've never known anything BUT Thatcher!

jonny2mad · Post by **jonny2mad** » 09 Apr 2013, 13:17

MrG wrote:
extractorfan wrote:celebrating someone's death for the views they held and got elected for by a well informed electorate is pretty shocking, even revolting.

Oh, but I'm under 60 so don't have a valid opinion on such matters unless of course they align with the socialist bias on these boards.
I nearly p1ssed myself when I read the comment about under 60's (don't remember who made it)

If your under the age of 35 then you've never known anything BUT Thatcher!

yup because what she did was so popular, her enemys had to move to the right to get elected. she never lost a national election

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 09 Apr 2013, 14:09

Well she might have lost one, but she got stabbed in the back by her own, dear party before we could find out ........

extractorfan · Post by **extractorfan** » 09 Apr 2013, 14:23

We'll never know for sure but it seems highly likely that labour would have got in to power in 97 regardless of turning into conservatives. People were at the end of their tether(sp) (teather??)

Although I remember being in a job, unskilled, at a rate of £5.50 per hour at the time. That was a bloody good hourly rate for the time, a time when there was no legal minimum wage.

jonny2mad · Post by **jonny2mad** » 09 Apr 2013, 14:27

nexus wrote:Well she might have lost one, but she got stabbed in the back by her own, dear party before we could find out ........

yup dead sheep howe and Heseltine. Ropey fellows I notice howe is saying it wasnt a stab in the back his resignation speech but it was .

jonny2mad · Post by **jonny2mad** » 09 Apr 2013, 14:38

Be interesting to see howe at the funeral, she had some people who stayed loyal like norman tebbit I think he will miss her .

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 09 Apr 2013, 20:08

extractorfan wrote:We'll never know for sure but it seems highly likely that labour would have got in to power in 97 regardless of turning into conservatives. People were at the end of their tether(sp) (teather??)

Although I remember being in a job, unskilled, at a rate of £5.50 per hour at the time. That was a bloody good hourly rate for the time, a time when there was no legal minimum wage.

Really! How do you explain Majors victory in 1992 against a relatively moderate Kinnock?

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/04 ... s-a09.html

A Marxist take on Thatcher - as you would expect pretty brutal. Sure the socialists on this site will want to read it.

extractorfan · Post by **extractorfan** » 09 Apr 2013, 20:36

Lord Beria3 wrote:
Really! How do you explain Majors victory in 1992 against a relatively moderate Kinnock?

He won because more constituencies voted conservative, he was the last conservative to win an outright majority. That's all I can give you.

With hindsight the power of the media to present an intelligent man as a buffoon, a ginger welsh buffoon helped major greatly.

I would theorise that the fiasco of exiting the ERM saw the beginning of the end of his premiership. He looked weak because of the parties desperate attempts to remain in.

This is all on wiki of course but I remember it well.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 09 Apr 2013, 20:43

Lord Beria3 wrote:
extractorfan wrote:We'll never know for sure but it seems highly likely that labour would have got in to power in 97 regardless of turning into conservatives. People were at the end of their tether(sp) (teather??)

Although I remember being in a job, unskilled, at a rate of £5.50 per hour at the time. That was a bloody good hourly rate for the time, a time when there was no legal minimum wage.
Really! How do you explain Majors victory in 1992 against a relatively moderate Kinnock?

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/04 ... s-a09.html

A Marxist take on Thatcher - as you would expect pretty brutal. Sure the socialists on this site will want to read it.

......In the ensuing years, the unstable foundations of the Thatcherite economic model—the massive accumulation of fictitious capital, unrelated to any development of economic production, and an explosion in credit-fuelled debt—were to produce a series of crises on the global stock markets. Nonetheless, Thatcher’s policies were continued and deepened by Labour under Tony Blair, her self-proclaimed political heir.......

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 10 Apr 2013, 00:37

As I remember it, it was the ginger Welshman against the grey Englishman. I don't think the press were impressed by either candidate.

You can't blame Thatcher for 13 years of Brown at the financial helm. He wanted to abolish boom and bust and he did so by "an explosion of personal debt" and national debt. No Troy Chancellor would have allowed, let alone encouraged, the continuous inflation in house prices nor the massive increase in national debt.

The current chancellor is trying to do something about the debt and deficit but to do any more than he is doing now would invoke "poll tax" type riots all over again. Yet again the Tories are having to sort out the mess left by a Labour Government.

Unfortunately, this time the mess hadn't really affected enough people to ensure a good majority. The present government is in the situation that Ted Heath found himself in, a small majority and little political support, so he didn't last long. I think this government will suffer the same fate and be ousted at the next election. It will only take one term of Labour in government again to make the situation so bad that they will be out of office for a very long time again.

Labour, this time around, don't have all the problems with the trade unions that they did in the sixties, thanks to Thatcher's bravery and resolve. The unions were driving inflation and wage increases up to 25% in the sixties but they don't have the power to wreck the economy now as they did then.

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 10 Apr 2013, 09:35

kenneal - lagger wrote: You can't blame Thatcher for 13 years of Brown at the financial helm. He wanted to abolish boom and bust and he did so by "an explosion of personal debt" and national debt. No Troy Chancellor would have allowed, let alone encouraged, the continuous inflation in house prices nor the massive increase in national debt.

I doubt that's true. Looked at dispassionately, there have been similar booms around the world, whatever the hue of government. After Mrs. T's sell-off, it was the next way to get money "in" - and all governments had to join the party. As we know from the raison d'etre of this site, there isn't an alternative.

The current chancellor is trying to do something about the debt and deficit but to do any more than he is doing now would invoke "poll tax" type riots all over again. Yet again the Tories are having to sort out the mess left by a Labour Government.

He's not really, is he? Spending is still going up, just not quite as much as it would have done. And, re your previous point, you will have noted George's attempt to blow a further property bubble by using government subsidies to reintroduce 95% mortgages.

Peter.