Maggie back at Number 10

[Johnny Bognor]

Much like now then, JB. Is that what you're implying?

 

True, the current recession is a synchronised recession which means the blame can't all be placed at Fraudon's doorstep.

 

However, there is one massive difference with 1980. Thatcher inherited a mess before the 1980 recession. Fraudon didn't put anything by in the boom years leading up to this recession. He was so far up his own arse that he thought he had abolished boom and bust. Therefore although Fraudon can't be blamed for the current recession, he can be blamed for not having us on a better footing before the recession.

 

The only reason why unemployment isn't currently above 3 million is that he has borrowed billions to employ an extra 500,000 people in Public Services. If we as a country lived within our means, unemployment now would be as bad as the early 80's, but I don't see anyone planning to **** on Fraudon's grave.

Edited 9 June, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[Saint in Paradise]

The Belgrano was during a war, the IRA killed hundreds of people without mercy and sanctions usually only hurt the people

who are most in need never the wealthy.

 

I forgot to say that I hated Thatcher and still remember where I was and the exact time (11.45 ) when I heard

she had been kicked out.

Edited 9 June, 2010 by Saint in Paradise

[Joensuu]

True, the current recession is a synchronised recession which means the blame can't all be placed at Fraudon's doorstep.

 

However, there is one massive difference with 1980. Thatcher inherited a mess before the 1980 recession. Fraudon didn't put anything by in the boom years leading up to this recession. He was so far up his own arse that he thought he had abolished boom and bust. Therefore although Fraudon can't be blamed for the current recession, he can be blamed for not having us on a better footing before the recession.

 

The only reason why unemployment isn't currently above 3 million is that he has borrowed billions to employ an extra 500,000 people in Public Services. If we as a country lived within our means, unemployment now would be as bad as the early 80's, but I don't see anyone planning to **** on Fraudon's grave.

 

JB, despite the 'fraudon' name-calling, this post sums up the current situation very accurately IMO.

Gordon didn't create the recession, and even with the best preparations we would still have suffered, but Blair & Brown's reckless spending (post 2001), and worse still their reckless borrowing during a boom, put the country in an incredibly weak situation when the recession hit.

Had government spending have stayed below £400 billion pa, we could have entered the recession with having already saved 3/4 of the debt mountain we now have to pay back.

[amsterdam]

...she completely misjudged the mood of the electorate...

 

This sums up my complete hatred of Thatcher. I'm happy to be called naive or simplistic, but in my opinion Public servants" are just that - servants of the public. I'm not a particularly big fan of Churchill either, but at least he displayed empathy and understanding of the general population; Thatcher just rode slipshod over general opinion and employed useless, corrupt t0ssers such as Cecil Parkinson to agree with her.

[Thedelldays]

you hate maggie for sinking the belgrano and for taking out TERRORISTS in gibraltar.

 

fuks me

[Rorytheking]

Can't be long now. God knows what she's still running on.

[solentstars]

That's right, it was all HER fault as no one else suffered recession in 1980. Oh wait a minute........

 

 

 

Highly synchronized recessions

........ the study looks at episodes of highly synchronized recessions, defined as those where 10 or more countries were simultaneously in recession.

 

In addition to the current cycle, there were three other episodes of highly synchronized recessions: 1975, 1980, and 1992. These recessions were on average longer and deeper. Distinct from other episodes, the recoveries from these recessions feature much weaker export growth, especially if the United States is also in recession.

 

(Source: IMF http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2009/res041609b.htm)

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's right, it was all HER fault as no one else suffered recession in 1992. Oh wait a minute........

 

Highly synchronized recessions

........ the study looks at episodes of highly synchronized recessions, defined as those where 10 or more countries were simultaneously in recession.

 

In addition to the current cycle, there were three other episodes of highly synchronized recessions: 1975, 1980 and 1992. These recessions were on average longer and deeper. Distinct from other episodes, the recoveries from these recessions feature much weaker export growth, especially if the United States is also in recession.

 

(Source: IMF http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2009/res041609b.htm)

 

 

Catch my drift?

 

no she made major policy mistakes but to the blinkered thatcher worshippers she was perfect,despite a overvalued pound due to high interest rates which destroyed large parts of our industrys and having to use northsea oil to pay for the mass unemplyment if it was not for the falklands war she would have been thrown out of office for her mismanagement of the economy at that time.

Howe’s budget of 1981 was a catastrophic, unforgiveable mistake, clinging to the wreckage of monetarism long after any reasonable person would have abandoned it, leading to one of the deepest (and least necessary) recessions on UK history; as was Lawson’s expansionary budget of 1988 based on the arrogant belief that he had conquered the business cycle.

Edited 9 June, 2010 by solentstars

[.comsaint]

you hate maggie for sinking the belgrano and for taking out TERRORISTS in gibraltar.

 

fuks me

 

Always makes me laugh when people go on about the sinking of the Belgrano - how terrible it was - and the young sailors that lost their lives when she went down. What they fail to understand however is that the Belgrano was a big, heavily-gunned ship capable of causing a lot of damage. The Argentinian government was warned not to send their Navy anywhere near the Falklands & failed to listen. The 2 escorting destroyers with her soon fled back to port after her sinking & their Navy was never put to sea again for the rest of the conflict.

 

True - she was outside the 200-mile exclusion zone when she was sunk - but that applies only to neutral vessels and not warships. It is sad that so many young sailors lost their lives - but that burden falls squarely on the shoulders of the Argentinian military.

 

I wonder if anyone sympathising with the loss of those on the Belgrano ever spare a thought for those on the Sheffield, Coventry, Ardent or Antelope?

[Wes Tender]

I'd turn this on it's head and argue what Maggie did right? Crushed the unions? Well probably neutered them and you could argue that was a good thing but the vendetta against the miners turned us into a shameful police state.

 

I'd turn this on its head and argue that the miners waged a vendetta against the elected government and tried to hold the country to ransom as they had done when Heath was PM. Maggie was made of sterner stuff than Heath and thankfully Scargill was beaten.

 

What she failed to do was tackle the poor management of nationalised industries and instead privatised them. She promised us cheaper prices and better services but we got neither.

 

Again, this is your opinion, without any backing of fact. The trouble with nationalised industries is that they are a monopoly, therefore do not have any competition. Many of those denationalised industries do offer better services and lower prices and with increased competition they offer more choice too. Take BT for example. Before it was denationalised, there was a choice of just two telephone handset models, one had to wait months to have a line installed and most of the telephone boxes were vandalised. The telephone services available now are unrecognisable and prices have reduced and services improved massively.

 

The beneficiaries of privatisation got rich while we subsidised them. Privatisation also helped destroy our appenticeship system. Privatisation increased the gap between rich and poor.

 

Rubbish. What destroyed our apprenticeship system was higher pay available to short-sighted youngsters who instead went for non-skilled work in the car industry or the building site, rather than serving a three or four year apprenticeship that would have served them for most of their working lives. Quite how privatisation increased the gap between rich and poor is beyond me. Kindly explain with evidence to back up your assertion.

 

 

She let people buy their own council houses but refused to let local authorities use the money received to build affordable houses. This helped create an artificial boom in the housing market as supply diminished.

 

So people lived in these council houses and paid rent for them, without ever owning one brick of them until she brought out that initiative. How does that have any ongoing effect on the housing market? Had they not bought their council houses, those people would still be tenants in the same houses. Instead, many now had a foot on the housing ladder and moved upwards later, thus freeing property into the market that had previously been in the rental sector. But of course, supply and demand continues to be the main pressure for building more or less housing. Currently we have had a diminished supply of housing simultaneously with declining property prices under the last Labour Government, so things aren't that simple. The thrust of the policy was to get more people owning their own homes and this succeeded.

 

Before the Falklands war she was the most unpopular prime minister in modern times - she was toast. She won an election on the back of patriotism and she was shrewd in that. She got lucky the next term in that she rode the wave of a global economic upsurge.

 

Maggie wasn't great she was lucky. She found the country in a mess, left the country in a mess and made her mates richer inbetween. She was a poster girl for the right but her debating skills were zero and her slogans laughable - "you turn if you want to, the lady's not for turning" could have been written on the back of a chardonnay soaked beermat.

 

I bow to your superior prowess as an historian and your last paragraph will undoubtedly be the one that learned scolars of the future turn to if they want to have the definitive critique of her terms in power.

 

Not.

[bridge too far]

I bow to your superior prowess as an historian and your last paragraph will undoubtedly be the one that learned scolars of the future turn to if they want to have the definitive critique of her terms in power.

 

Not.

 

I don't know how to multiquote Wes but I'd like to pick up on one point about housing.

 

I think the problem with 'right to buy' was that the money that local authorities received when they sold their housing stock was not allowed to be used to reprovide council housing. But I can well understand people wanting to buy houses they'd lived in for years.

 

I don't know what happened to those receipts - whether they were held as reserves or whether local authorities used them for other things - but they weren't used to reprovide and that's where a lot of the problems stem from.

 

Some of the void was filled by housing associations and some of the remaining council housing was handed over to the housing associations, most of which do a sterling job. But it didn't address the problem of affordable housing to rent.

 

The resultant property boom meant a lot of people were even more priced out of the market.

 

The last government started to address the issue with 'rent to buy' and keyworker accommodation but much more needed to be done. My daughter and her husband (he a teacher and she earning more than him) could only afford to buy 75% of their house and will have to pay the remainder within 10 years. And they're not poor by any stretch of the imagination, nor are they unique. Still at least they're not having to pay 15+% interest as was the case in the 90s.

 

I don't think property prices have fallen - certainly not in the South / South East. Our house is worth 30% more than when we bought it 7 years ago.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

History will be the judge of her and she will be judged as a great Prime Minister, whether you whingeing lefties like it or not.

 

This needs to go in 'Golden Posts' - Priceless.

[Johnny Bognor]

Howe’s budget of 1981 was a catastrophic, unforgiveable mistake, clinging to the wreckage of monetarism long after any reasonable person would have abandoned it, leading to one of the deepest (and least necessary) recessions on UK history; as was Lawson’s expansionary budget of 1988 based on the arrogant belief that he had conquered the business cycle.

 

Of course our friends in the US are clearly unreasonable, as they clung to monetarism until September 1982.

 

Luckily countries like the USA (world's largest economy at the time), and Germany (the other major powerhouse) also suffered recessions in 1980, as did Ireland, Canada, Japan, China, India and New Zealand (Couldn't be bothered to look for any more as my point is made).

 

Yep, blame it all on Maggie, it was all her fault.

[Wes Tender]

I don't know how to multiquote Wes but I'd like to pick up on one point about housing.

 

I think the problem with 'right to buy' was that the money that local authorities received when they sold their housing stock was not allowed to be used to reprovide council housing. But I can well understand people wanting to buy houses they'd lived in for years.

 

I don't know what happened to those receipts - whether they were held as reserves or whether local authorities used them for other things - but they weren't used to reprovide and that's where a lot of the problems stem from.

 

Some of the void was filled by housing associations and some of the remaining council housing was handed over to the housing associations, most of which do a sterling job. But it didn't address the problem of affordable housing to rent.

 

The resultant property boom meant a lot of people were even more priced out of the market.

 

The last government started to address the issue with 'rent to buy' and keyworker accommodation but much more needed to be done. My daughter and her husband (he a teacher and she earning more than him) could only afford to buy 75% of their house and will have to pay the remainder within 10 years. And they're not poor by any stretch of the imagination, nor are they unique. Still at least they're not having to pay 15+% interest as was the case in the 90s.

 

I don't think property prices have fallen - certainly not in the South / South East. Our house is worth 30% more than when we bought it 7 years ago.

 

The policy regarding sale of Council houses precluded Councils using it to rebuild new stock until outstanding Council debt had been repaid as I recall. That is good housekeeping, surely. A bit like the Skates being given the proceeds of the parachute payments and it being conditional on them using it to repay debt.

 

The policy might have produced a shortage of low cost rental housing in areas like London, but it wasn't as if those existing tenants were then homeless, merely that extra housing wasn't built by London Councils to cater for others who needed low cost rental accomodation. But as you say, Housing Associations have sprung up in their place and do indeed do a good job of it. But if the policy was so flawed, how come Labour didn't get rid of it during their lengthy term in office? They tinkered with it, but the right to buy still remains.

 

Personally I detest this scheme of allowing people to buy half the property and rent the other half. My reason for this stance is not because I don't want people to have the opportunity of getting their feet on the housing ladder, but rather that it helps to perpetuate the higher property prices, which would fall through supply and demand if the purchasers refused to go along with it. In effect, they are helping to sustain the higher prices because of their own actions. The failure of the economies here and in many other countries around the World, has had the effect of reducing property prices to more affordable levels, but finance companies are not releasing sufficient funds to boost the market, so property prices remain flat, despite increased demand.

 

Certainly over a period of 7 years the prices have shown growth, but my property has lost probably as much as 30% over the past couple of years and a supposed increase of 10% over the last year still leaves me way behind three years ago, although still well ahead of 7 years ago. There may be one or two places around the South East where property prices remained static, but most of the South and South East experienced big falls during the past couple of years, as did most of the rest of the country.

 

Average mortgage rates didn't quite reach 15% as far as I'm aware. And it was not for long and had much to do with tracking the Euro which thankfully we drew back from. Mind you, interest rates are a tool of economic control to attempt to rein in an overheating economy and inflation rates which also affect house prices peaked at over 25% under Healey. Naturally, I was very pleased with Healey, as the value of my mortgage debt decreased by the difference between that inflationary 25% and the much lower mortgage interest rate at the time. But of course, that sky high inflation figure was not very good news for the retired elderly living on their investments in the Building Societies who were offering a very much lower return, so many saw their life savings massively reduced in a very short time.

 

So looking over the very long term, typically the 25 years of a mortgage period, bricks and mortar have been a good investment, but during that period there are always peaks and troughs, booms and recessionary falls.

[Wes Tender]

This needs to go in 'Golden Posts' - Priceless.

 

Why, thank you kind sir.

[ericb]

I can't wait for the witch to go, and there's a fair few of her crew that i'll enjoy the demise of too (Tebbit for one).

 

and a video to help the reasoned debate that's bound to follow.

[buctootim]

Maggie was very good PM as was Blair. Major was disaster but not as much as Brown (except for his first three years as Chancellor).

[dune]

I bought a good bottle of champagne the day she was ousted and I will open it in celebration the day she dies.

 

What a vile individual you are.

[Brussels Saint]

I had no idea there was still this much polarisation on Thatcher, certainly no middle ground here.

Reminds me of the good old days of politics when there was a real left and right and they were passionately committed to their beliefs and genuinely could not understand how the other side could hold such views. Now everything is spun to please us all roughly somewhere in the middle. Dull.

At least Prescott and Goldsmith had a good go at it this morning on the Today programme.

 

For me, I think what Thatcher’s governments did on the whole has made the UK stronger and wealthier today than ever we would have been without her. Unfortunately certain communities in the UK paid an unacceptably high price for what was needed. I'm glad she did it, but feel slightly guilty as I was not one of those who suffered.

[Under Weststand]

I don't know how to multiquote Wes but I'd like to pick up on one point about housing.

 

I think the problem with 'right to buy' was that the money that local authorities received when they sold their housing stock was not allowed to be used to reprovide council housing. But I can well understand people wanting to buy houses they'd lived in for years.

 

.

Your dead right there BTF my long departed Father was the New Forest Housing officer at the time then dear Margaret decided to go down this route. My Dad was a staunch Tory, but he fought tooth and nail against this decision, not because he didn't want people to own their own homes. it was down to the fact that they wouldn't re-invest it into new housing. The stress of having to cope with less & less homes to supply the demand finally lead to heart problems & having to retire early.

I grew up in a staunch Tory household & voted Tory until the election following the Falklands war. At that time I started questioning them, when on the run up to the war the Tories were running the armed forces down. Then low & behold the Falklands happen. A friend of my mums eldest lad was in the navy & at the time was half way through stripping HMS Hermes down for scrap, funny he then had to help re-build her & she became the flag ship for the campaign. Poor decisions which she implemented & was forced to reverse!

Then There's the miners strike, that will forever be a reason to be ashamed for me. I bought into the demonization of Arthur Scargill by the press at the time & never once questioned her use of the police as her personal junta. I truly truly regret not supporting Arthur & the miners. She was vindictive in her closing of several pits following the strike that would have been viable.

There are several arguments on here & I guess she just polarizes most people, you either think she is the best thing since sliced bread & can see no wrong in her jack-boot style politics, or you feel nothing but contempt for her & I for one will join in with a lot of people in this country & raise a glass or two as she sheds her mortal coil.

[rocknrollman no2]

Your dead right there BTF my long departed Father was the New Forest Housing officer at the time then dear Margaret decided to go down this route. My Dad was a staunch Tory, but he fought tooth and nail against this decision, not because he didn't want people to own their own homes. it was down to the fact that they wouldn't re-invest it into new housing. The stress of having to cope with less & less homes to supply the demand finally lead to heart problems & having to retire early.

I grew up in a staunch Tory household & voted Tory until the election following the Falklands war. At that time I started questioning them, when on the run up to the war the Tories were running the armed forces down. Then low & behold the Falklands happen. A friend of my mums eldest lad was in the navy & at the time was half way through stripping HMS Hermes down for scrap, funny he then had to help re-build her & she became the flag ship for the campaign. Poor decisions which she implemented & was forced to reverse!

Then There's the miners strike, that will forever be a reason to be ashamed for me. I bought into the demonization of Arthur Scargill by the press at the time & never once questioned her use of the police as her personal junta. I truly truly regret not supporting Arthur & the miners. She was vindictive in her closing of several pits following the strike that would have been viable.

There are several arguments on here & I guess she just polarizes most people, you either think she is the best thing since sliced bread & can see no wrong in her jack-boot style politics, or you feel nothing but contempt for her & I for one will join in with a lot of people in this country & raise a glass or two as she sheds her mortal coil.

Good post!

[rocknrollman no2]

In fact the Nottinghamshire miners actually went against the strike when Thatcher promised them they would be looked upon favourably,she even said herself without them she would have lost against Scargill.But guess what?

After she broke the strike,she closed all of their pits as well.

[scotty]

Couldn't care a toss for all those who would dance on her grave when she dies.

 

I did the same when Wilson popped his clogs and similarly harbour the same thoughts about Healey, Prescott, the tub of lard Hattersley and Gordon Brown.

 

History will be the judge of her and she will be judged as a great Prime Minister, whether you whingeing lefties like it or not.

 

And for those who are left mentally scarred because she stopped free school milk, well, what can I say but poor Diddums. Life is so unfair, isn't it?

 

I would dispute that. She hasn't been up to now, and she was dragged kicking and screaming out of downing street some years ago

[Dark Munster]

The policy of Thatcherism means they believe by making those with loads of money much more richer,the wealth will trickle down to those at the bottom.

Although under Thatcher the rich just got much more richer.

That sounds just like the Republican party over here.

[Wes Tender]

I would dispute that. She hasn't been up to now, and she was dragged kicking and screaming out of downing street some years ago

 

So you're an historian then? Most historians make their judgements about a person after they have died. You appear to be one of the few on here who acknowledges that she went some years ago, so well done. Others seem to forget that when she first arrived in power it was over thirty years ago and they carry on as if it were just yesterday.

 

Dune baited the hook by starting this thread with the picture of her outside Number 10 and it's amazing how many bites he got. Personally, I'm not taking much notice as to how the pros and cons stack up on her on a football forum. I don't really see that as representative of the views of the country as a whole, thank God.

[solentstars]

its clear from the reply s that alot of posters on this forum did not think she was the greatest prime minster apart from the usual suspects who i expect lined their pockets along with the richest people of the country while the poor were treated like dirt .

shes gone yesterdays news you either loved her or hated her.

to me i,m glad to get away from living under that dark period, when i nearly lost my home threw her government mismanagement of the economy and working a 2 day week and high interst rates and vat doubling in the early years of her administration. i,m glad we have moved on from the divisive policys of the 70s and 80s from the nutty right and nutty left.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

What a vile individual you are.

 

That, from, I believe, a former (?) racist, is a strong case of Pot, Kettle, Black.

 

Can I use that last word Stan?

[EastleighSoulBoy]

In fact the Nottinghamshire miners actually went against the strike when Thatcher promised them they would be looked upon favourably,she even said herself without them she would have lost against Scargill.But guess what?

After she broke the strike,she closed all of their pits as well.

 

Best-wood (bliddy filter!) has a lovely housing estate now. Trouble is there have been no jobs since the pit shut so the locals can't afford to buy and come off the council housing list!

[Wes Tender]

its clear from the reply s that alot of posters on this forum did not think she was the greatest prime minster apart from the usual suspects who i expect lined their pockets along with the richest people of the country while the poor were treated like dirt .

shes gone yesterdays news you either loved her or hated her.

to me i,m glad to get away from living under that dark period, when i nearly lost my home threw her government mismanagement of the economy and working a 2 day week and high interst rates and vat doubling in the early years of her administration. i,m glad we have moved on from the divisive policys of the 70s and 80s from the nutty right and nutty left.

 

Well, as I said above, opinion from posters on a football forum is hardly going to be representative of the views of the country at large, is it?

 

What I would say judging from your post, is that whichever regime was in power during the formative years of your schooling has a lot to answer for regarding your education, or more accurately, lack of it. You must have been skiving off school when they had the lessons on punctuation.

 

You're glad that we've moved on from the 70s and 80s and the struggles they brought you because of the financial turmoil, but presumably you believe today to be a garden of roses by comparison. Let me predict without much difficulty that what is to come will make that look like a picnic by comparison. And yes, it will be the Conservatives again causing you pain because of their policies. But if you take away the blinkers of your political prejudice, you will accept that the painful medicine will have to be administered because of Labour's mismanagement of the economy, just as much of the pain of the 80's was for the same reason.

[badgerx16]

Can't be long now. God knows what she's still running on.

God won't have her, and Old Nick's already got Adolf, Stalin, Pinochet, and Khomeni - he's getting squeezed out. So she's got nowhere to go.

[ecuk268]

I met her once. She's shorter than you think.

 

She visited a company where I was working during the '83 election campaign, along with Dennis and a rather portly Carol.

 

She treated the whole thing as a big photo opportunity whereas Dennis was an amiable old duffer, chatting happily to anyone and everyone.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Why is it the Leftie's praise people who were wrong on every issue, and had the whiff of KGB money about them in Foot and Jones, and yet have a blind hatred towards a women that the British people elected 3 times. To compare her to Hitler is shameful and ignorant.

 

In the 10 years from 1979 to 1989 more people owned shares and houses, the Unions were put in their place, it no longer took weeks to get a phone line fitted and Britain was no longer the sick man of Europe.All measures oppossed by Labour. They lost the arguement, abandoned clause 4,and embraced much of Maggie's agenda. They had 13 years in power and yet did not repeal any of the union laws, did not renationalise anything, let market forces prevail and even made the bank of England independent ( a move considered too radical by Mrs T).The Labour movement had to move towards Mrs T and away from the Leftie heros like Foot and Benn, perhaps thats the reason they have a pathological hatred of her.

[badgerx16]

Why is it the Leftie's praise people who were wrong on every issue, and had the whiff of KGB money about them in Foot and Jones, and yet have a blind hatred towards a women that the British people elected 3 times. To compare her to Hitler is shameful and ignorant.

 

In the 10 years from 1979 to 1989 more people owned shares and houses, the Unions were put in their place, it no longer took weeks to get a phone line fitted and Britain was no longer the sick man of Europe.All measures oppossed by Labour. They lost the arguement, abandoned clause 4,and embraced much of Maggie's agenda. They had 13 years in power and yet did not repeal any of the union laws, did not renationalise anything, let market forces prevail and even made the bank of England independent ( a move considered too radical by Mrs T).The Labour movement had to move towards Mrs T and away from the Leftie heros like Foot and Benn, perhaps thats the reason they have a pathological hatred of her.

So you're not coming to the party then ?

[Johnny Bognor]

its clear from the reply s that alot of posters on this forum did not think she was the greatest prime minster apart from the usual suspects who i expect lined their pockets along with the richest people of the country while the poor were treated like dirt ..

 

The poor always suffer in economic downturns. They are due to announce that unemployment will go above the 3m mark today (which funnily enough is the amount always quoted by the lefties as being caused by Maggie). Do you think that the poor have escaped this time round? Nope, they will suffer as much now as they did then. That's nothing to do with Thatcher as she has long gone, it is the way of the world (rightly or wrongly).

 

shes gone yesterdays news you either loved her or hated her.

 

I disagree, as I neither hate her or love her. I expect that I am in the majority. She did some good/necessary things and she also ****ed up (as do all Prime Ministers). I describe her as a necessary evil.

 

i,m glad we have moved on from the divisive policys of the 70s and 80s from the nutty right and nutty left.

 

Funnily enough, it seems that the nutty right and the nutty left on here are the only ones that either love her or hate her.

Edited 10 June, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[iansums]

Thatcher would be unelectable now, she did polarise the country and in many ways yes she was a 'lucky' PM.

 

But, I for one thank her. The country was in a terible state in the 70's. She destroyed the unions which had to be done and Labour quite rightly did not repeal the legislation. She laid the groundwork for subsequent governments.

[GenevaSaint]

Is she dead yet?

[dune]

That, from, I believe, a former (?) racist, is a strong case of Pot, Kettle, Black.

 

Can I use that last word Stan?

 

You really are very boring. I pity you.

[trousers]

Why is it the Leftie's praise people who were wrong on every issue, and had the whiff of KGB money about them in Foot and Jones, and yet have a blind hatred towards a women that the British people elected 3 times. To compare her to Hitler is shameful and ignorant.

 

In the 10 years from 1979 to 1989 more people owned shares and houses, the Unions were put in their place, it no longer took weeks to get a phone line fitted and Britain was no longer the sick man of Europe.All measures oppossed by Labour. They lost the arguement, abandoned clause 4,and embraced much of Maggie's agenda. They had 13 years in power and yet did not repeal any of the union laws, did not renationalise anything, let market forces prevail and even made the bank of England independent ( a move considered too radical by Mrs T).The Labour movement had to move towards Mrs T and away from the Leftie heros like Foot and Benn, perhaps thats the reason they have a pathological hatred of her.

 

Well said Sir

[EastleighSoulBoy]

You really are very boring. I pity you.

 

Why thank you Stanley!

[St Landrew]

What a vile individual you are.

 

Incredible as it may seem, but not every person in jolly old Blighty thought that Margaret Thatcher was God's gift to 10 Downing Street. Some people's lives have been so blighted that they have never quite recovered from her time in Govt. For those people, I'd expect a few champagne corks might indeed pop at her passing, if they could spare the cash. It wouldn't make them vile individuals either.

[Saint George]

Incredible as it may seem, but not every person in jolly old Blighty thought that Margaret Thatcher was God's gift to 10 Downing Street. Some people's lives have been so blighted that they have never quite recovered from her time in Govt. For those people, I'd expect a few champagne corks might indeed pop at her passing, if they could spare the cash. It wouldn't make them vile individuals either.

 

And that very victim mentality is exactly the reason Britain has got it's self in the state its in, with half the population of many towns and villages in Britain on some kind disability benefit or the dole...pathetic!

 

Norman told them what to do 20 years ago....Peeps that took notice are doing OK these days...

 

The ones that were crying to loud to listen or just wanted to play victim have bought it upon them selves...FFS! if they haven't got over what ever it was that "blighted" them 15 - 20 years ago, then they get what they deserve in my book...Cut their benefits, they'll soon get off their arses and go find a job somewhere.....

 

No sympathy from me

[Wes Tender]

Incredible as it may seem, but not every person in jolly old Blighty thought that Margaret Thatcher was God's gift to 10 Downing Street. Some people's lives have been so blighted that they have never quite recovered from her time in Govt. For those people, I'd expect a few champagne corks might indeed pop at her passing, if they could spare the cash. It wouldn't make them vile individuals either.

 

It doesn't seem incredible at all to most sensible people that a Prime Minister and indeed the party they led, are not universally popular. There is not one PM or party that has garnered universal support throughout history.

 

Opinion on MT is far more polarised than for other leaders because she had to take more urgent action than most on matters that needed addressing or else the country would have ended up going further down the pan.

 

She took the measures that turned the economy around when we were known as the sick man of Europe. Naturally the medicine administered was no more palateable than it will be when Cameron has to attempt to clear up the mess left by Labour this time around.

 

She took on the Trade Unions, whose hold on Britain's manufacturing industry and the public sector had allowed them to hold the country to ransom on more than one occasion. British Industry was massively overmanned and inefficient through restrictive practices with strikes every five minutes, especially in the Nationalised sector.

 

There were many heavy industries like shipbuilding, coal mining, car manufacturing, steel and train manufacturing that would inevitably sooner or later lose out to foreign competition with their lower unit labour costs. Those industries might have hung on longer had it not been that they were crippled by union action that made them bloated and costly to run.

 

So for all those who lost their jobs through those industries that went to the wall because of the reasons I gave, their jobs would have had to have gone anyway, regardless of which party was in office. If some lost houses through property speculation or through profligate overspending on their credit cards, then enough warnings are given that the value of investments can go down as well as up.

 

People are going to have to learn the very same lessons this time around too, so inevitably if Cameron has the guts to take the measures needed to put the economy right, he will be a figure of hate too in a decade, if he sees it through.

[trousers]

 

And that very victim mentality is exactly the reason Britain has got it's self in the state its in, with half the population of many towns and villages in Britain on some kind disability benefit or the dole...pathetic!

 

Norman told them what to do 20 years ago....Peeps that took notice are doing OK these days...

 

The ones that were crying to loud to listen or just wanted to play victim have bought it upon them selves...FFS! if they haven't got over what ever it was that "blighted" them 15 - 20 years ago, then they get what they deserve in my book...Cut their benefits, they'll soon get off their arses and go find a job somewhere.....

 

No sympathy from me

Round of applause sir.

 

I've never worked out why, if the mines were a profitable going concern in the 70s/80s then why didn't someone offer private money or a management/staff buyout to take them off the State's hands? Perhaps, just perhaps, they weren't a going concern?

[ecuk268]

Round of applause sir.

 

I've never worked out why, if the mines were a profitable going concern in the 70s/80s then why didn't someone offer private money or a management/staff buyout to take them off the State's hands? Perhaps, just perhaps, they weren't a going concern?

 

Mrs T was scared of being dependant on those nasty miners so encouraged the "dash for gas" by building gas-fired power station and buying cheap imported coal for the coal-fired stations.

 

So now we are very dependant on Russian gas and could be held to ransom if the regime changes in the USSR.

 

With the new cleaner coal-fired stations, a prudent government would consider re-opening some of the more productive mines.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

And that very victim mentality is exactly the reason Britain has got it's self in the state its in, with half the population of many towns and villages in Britain on some kind disability benefit or the dole...pathetic!

 

Norman told them what to do 20 years ago....Peeps that took notice are doing OK these days...

 

The ones that were crying to loud to listen or just wanted to play victim have bought it upon them selves...FFS! if they haven't got over what ever it was that "blighted" them 15 - 20 years ago, then they get what they deserve in my book...Cut their benefits, they'll soon get off their arses and go find a job somewhere.....

 

No sympathy from me

 

Your comments are quite right right apart from the fact that people on Disability Living Allowance are exactly that. Suffering from a dsability. They are also required to be checked regularly to see that they are not swinging the lead. Because of that being included it rather let you down.

[Wes Tender]

Your comments are quite right right apart from the fact that people on Disability Living Allowance are exactly that. Suffering from a dsability. They are also required to be checked regularly to see that they are not swinging the lead. Because of that being included it rather let you down.

 

The essence of what you write is not whether people have a disability, it is whether that disability prevents them from working. There have been numerous well publicised cases of widespread fraud, of people who are allegedly incapacitated, but refereeing football matches, working as landscape gardeners, or trekking across continents.

 

A couple of years ago, the BBC published a report, which gave some interesting background to the situation at that time

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7173453.stm

 

Parts that stand out for me are as follows:-

An estimated 500,000 people are now claiming IB, while claims from under-25s have risen by more than half over the last 10 years.

 

INCAPACITY FIGURES

2.64m people claim IB

It costs the country £12.65bn every year

More than half of IB claimants have been on benefit for 5 years or more

The number of young people claiming IB is up by a half

 

Mr Cameron said: "I don't believe that there are nearly half a million young people in Britain with a disability which prevents them from doing any work at all.

 

The Conservatives are the latest party to focus on the large number of IB claimants, estimated to have nearly quadrupled since the 1970s.

 

The figure has fallen slightly over recent years to about 2.6m people - but experts are still puzzled at the overall trend, given the UK's rising health and living standards.

 

There have also been a number of high-profile cases of apparently healthy people fraudulently claiming the benefit, while secretly holding down physically demanding jobs.

 

The government has already pledged to introduce tougher tests for those claiming IB from this autumn. It says it expects to cut the number of claimants by 20,000 each year.

 

But the tests will initially apply only to new claimants, while the Conservatives say they are determined to make all claimants - including existing ones - prove they qualify for the £81-a-week benefit.

 

Now, I haven't dug too deep into the situation since that report. The target was to reduce the numbers claiming by 20000 per annum. But it is clear that unless there was a massive increase in the number of people, particularly the young, becoming somehow incapitated in very large numbers, the inference could be drawn that many were claiming fraudulently. I suspect that many claimed back injuries, which are difficult to prove. More likely the problem was a lack of backbone.

 

One advantage of this increase in claimants of disability allowance is that the figures are taken off the unemployment statistics as far as I'm aware and they also increase pressure for increased expenditure on the National Health budgets.

[AndyNorthernSaints]

The essence of what you write is not whether people have a disability, it is whether that disability prevents them from working. There have been numerous well publicised cases of widespread fraud, of people who are allegedly incapacitated, but refereeing football matches, working as landscape gardeners, or trekking across continents.

 

A couple of years ago, the BBC published a report, which gave some interesting background to the situation at that time

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7173453.stm

 

Parts that stand out for me are as follows:-

An estimated 500,000 people are now claiming IB, while claims from under-25s have risen by more than half over the last 10 years.

 

INCAPACITY FIGURES

2.64m people claim IB

It costs the country £12.65bn every year

More than half of IB claimants have been on benefit for 5 years or more

The number of young people claiming IB is up by a half

 

Mr Cameron said: "I don't believe that there are nearly half a million young people in Britain with a disability which prevents them from doing any work at all.

 

The Conservatives are the latest party to focus on the large number of IB claimants, estimated to have nearly quadrupled since the 1970s.

 

The figure has fallen slightly over recent years to about 2.6m people - but experts are still puzzled at the overall trend, given the UK's rising health and living standards.

 

There have also been a number of high-profile cases of apparently healthy people fraudulently claiming the benefit, while secretly holding down physically demanding jobs.

 

The government has already pledged to introduce tougher tests for those claiming IB from this autumn. It says it expects to cut the number of claimants by 20,000 each year.

 

But the tests will initially apply only to new claimants, while the Conservatives say they are determined to make all claimants - including existing ones - prove they qualify for the £81-a-week benefit.

 

Now, I haven't dug too deep into the situation since that report. The target was to reduce the numbers claiming by 20000 per annum. But it is clear that unless there was a massive increase in the number of people, particularly the young, becoming somehow incapitated in very large numbers, the inference could be drawn that many were claiming fraudulently. I suspect that many claimed back injuries, which are difficult to prove. More likely the problem was a lack of backbone.

 

One advantage of this increase in claimants of disability allowance is that the figures are taken off the unemployment statistics as far as I'm aware and they also increase pressure for increased expenditure on the National Health budgets.

On the subject of DLA,

Most people applying for DLA now have their aplication turned down at first and have to appeal. This happens no matter what illness/disability they have. I know relatives and friends who have been refused DLA even though they had terminal cancer. Some don't appeal or know how to complete the forms correctly and don't seek advice from Welfare Rights workers or Macmillan Nurses etc. However there will always be people who exploit any system and i have met people on DLA Mobility who go out jogging etc while someone who requires equipment to mobilise is turned down. It is much harder to get and keep DLA than previously IMO and it is the genuine people who need it for care and to get around that suffer.

Alot of people who have learning or physical disability want to work but face many barriers in doing so.

[badgerx16]

Most people applying for DLA now have their aplication turned down at first and have to appeal. This happens no matter what illness/disability they have.

This is indeed true.

[Wes Tender]

On the subject of DLA,

Most people applying for DLA now have their aplication turned down at first and have to appeal. This happens no matter what illness/disability they have. I know relatives and friends who have been refused DLA even though they had terminal cancer. Some don't appeal or know how to complete the forms correctly and don't seek advice from Welfare Rights workers or Macmillan Nurses etc. However there will always be people who exploit any system and i have met people on DLA Mobility who go out jogging etc while someone who requires equipment to mobilise is turned down. It is much harder to get and keep DLA than previously IMO and it is the genuine people who need it for care and to get around that suffer.

Alot of people who have learning or physical disability want to work but face many barriers in doing so.

 

It is encouraging that it is more difficult for this benefit to be abused, because like you, I believe that if fraudulent claims are reduced, more money is made available for those whose need is genuine.

 

I also agree that there must be many who are disabled who would like to work, but who find barriers such as prejudice and bigotry placed in front of them, not to mention red tape regarding the Health and Safety bureaucracy.

 

But the tests will initially apply only to new claimants, while the Conservatives say they are determined to make all claimants - including existing ones - prove they qualify for the £81-a-week benefit.

 

But what happened about the above? Seems to me that at the time of this proposal, a much higher number of people were already claiming the benefit than previously. It surely cannot be that numbers would have increased so dramatically over a few years without many of those claims being fraudulent. Did Labour do an about turn on that, or is it the case that during the past two years or so, those already claiming avoided the tests? If so, I am assuming that it will be looked at anew by the Coalition.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Both the Tory and Labour Govt's have been guilty of pushing people onto Disability and off unemployment because it looks better.

 

In an age when people are more healthy,it seems strange that there are more people, not less on disability. I have a severely disabled nephew, who will never be able to work, and my sister gets fantastic help from the state. However, there are plenty of people who could work, and these need getting off this benefit. How you do that without upsetting people like my Sister is a very hard balancing act.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Can't be long now. God knows what she's still running on.

 

Vitriol.