Maggie Thatcher has died

[badgerx16]

About bloody time the Labour Party started acting like the Labour Party again rather than "Tory Lite".

 

Are you now a convert then T ?

[trousers]

Are you now a convert then T ?

 

No, of course not , I'm just saying I prefer an opposition that actually offers an alternative to the voter....

 

Talking of which....

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/04/labour-must-search-answers-and-not-merely-aspire-be-repository-people%E2%80%99s-anger

 

The paradox of the financial crisis is that, despite being widely held to have been caused by under-regulated markets, it has not brought a decisive shift to the left. But what might happen is that the left believes such a shift has occurred and behaves accordingly. The risk, which is highly visible here in Britain, is that the country returns to a familiar left/right battle. The familiarity is because such a contest dominated the 20th century. The risk is because in the 21st century such a contest debilitates rather than advances the nation.

This is at present crystallising around debates over austerity, welfare, immigration and Europe. Suddenly, parts of the political landscape that had been cast in shadow for some years, at least under New Labour and the first years of coalition government, are illuminated in sharp relief. The Conservative Party is back clothing itself in the mantle of fiscal responsibility, buttressed by moves against “benefit scroungers”, immigrants squeezing out British workers and – of course – Labour profligacy.

The Labour Party is back as the party opposing “Tory cuts”, highlighting the cruel consequences of the Conservative policies on welfare and representing the disadvantaged and vulnerable (the Lib Dems are in a bit of a fix, frankly).

For the Conservatives, this scenario is less menacing than it seems. They are now going to inspire loathing on the left. But they’re used to that. They’re back on the old territory of harsh reality, tough decisions, piercing the supposed veil of idealistic fantasy that prevents the left from governing sensibly. Compassionate Conservatism mattered when compassion was in vogue. But it isn’t now. Getting the house in order is.

For Labour, the opposite is true. This scenario is more menacing than it seems. The ease with which it can settle back into its old territory of defending the status quo, allying itself, even anchoring itself, to the interests that will passionately and often justly oppose what the government is doing, is so apparently rewarding, that the exercise of political will lies not in going there, but in resisting the temptation to go there.

Edited 11 April, 2013 by trousers

[pap]

About bloody time the Labour Party started acting like the Labour Party again rather than "Tory Lite".

 

Completely agree ( and I've read your post further down too ), but not for the same reasons.

 

Back in the 80s, any attempt by Labour to do something radical ( ban nukes, for example ) was ridiculed by the right, and lapped up by the "I'm doing alright" middle classes. That last group has gotten considerably smaller.

[jjsaint]

Glenda Jackson is an embarrassment. She should have stuck to the theatre where she was not so clearly and horribly out of her depth.

[solentstars]

Glenda Jackson is an embarrassment. She should have stuck to the theatre where she was not so clearly and horribly out of her depth.

 

That's funny she reminded me as a carbon copy of Maggie with that speech.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[trousers]

Completely agree ( and I've read your post further down too ), but not for the same reasons.

 

Back in the 80s, any attempt by Labour to do something radical ( ban nukes, for example ) was ridiculed by the right, and lapped up by the "I'm doing alright" middle classes. That last group has gotten considerably smaller.

 

Any thoughts on the UK being ranked 2nd in this list of most advanced countries pap, despite Thatcher's (and subsequently Blair's) best efforts to destroy the country?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9984829/Britain-ranked-second-only-to-Sweden-in-table-of-most-advanced-countries.html

 

[Trousers retreats 10 yards ready to be ripped to shreds intellectually]

Edited 11 April, 2013 by trousers

[trousers]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307189/Margaret-Thatcher-dead-We-airport-honour-says-London-Mayor-Boris-Johnson.html

 

Johnson said: ‘Mega airports are springing up all over the continent that are stealing British trade and are a threat to our economy.‘It is why this country so desperately needs a new four runway hub airport and I can think of no name that would strike greater fear into the heart of our European rivals than Margaret Thatcher International Airport.’

Good luck with that one Boris!

 

Could we not change the name of the capital to Thatcher? Or rename the country Thatcherland? Vote Boris Johnson for more brilliant, self serving ideas.- graham , London, 11/4/2013 08:03

[pap]

Any thoughts on the UK being ranked 2nd in this list of most advanced countries pap, despite Thatcher's (and subsequently Blair's) best efforts to destroy the country?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9984829/Britain-ranked-second-only-to-Sweden-in-table-of-most-advanced-countries.html

 

[Trousers retreats 10 yards ready to be ripped to shreds intellectually]

 

Despite everything, this country is still the one I love the most. However, the main thrust of that article is the Social Progress Index, and your main point lies in Britain being a technically advanced country.

 

There are better places to live in terms of quality of life and opportunity. There are countries that have technological showpieces that make us look like shire horse exhibitors at a village fair. There are also countries where people have more of an influence in the direction of their country.

 

I cannot deny that Britain has been a good package for me, but then I was lucky enough to be handed down a decent brain, born in a time when the cost of higher education was low enough not to be prohibitive and began my career at a time when I was competing with fellow Britons, not the assembled masses of Eastern Europe ( or in my career case, India ).

 

That all said, just as you'd probably acknowledge you had an easier time than me ( just because of your age and benefits at the time ), I have to acknowledge that the current generation have even fewer opportunities than I did - and that long-term, governments are doing little to replace the jobs that have been gutted from the economy.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Despite everything, this country is still the one I love the most. However, the main thrust of that article is the Social Progress Index, and your main point lies in Britain being a technically advanced country.

 

There are better places to live in terms of quality of life and opportunity. There are countries that have technological showpieces that make us look like shire horse exhibitors at a village fair. There are also countries where people have more of an influence in the direction of their country.

 

I cannot deny that Britain has been a good package for me, but then I was lucky enough to be handed down a decent brain, born in a time when the cost of higher education was low enough not to be prohibitive and began my career at a time when I was competing with fellow Britons, not the assembled masses of Eastern Europe ( or in my career case, India ).

 

That all said, just as you'd probably acknowledge you had an easier time than me ( just because of your age and benefits at the time ), I have to acknowledge that the current generation have even fewer opportunities than I did - and that long-term, governments are doing little to replace the jobs that have been gutted from the economy.

 

It's easy to knock countries, especially the one you live in. But really, I think we are quite lucky. Britain is pretty great, it has its flaws and faults, but there are much, much worse places to be really. I say Britain deliberately, as I'd be sad to see it broken up, though I do believe if the Scots choose independence then they should be allowed it.

 

I don't wish to open another angry exchange with you papster. I guess I'm more jut thinking aloud.

 

Do you not think that jobs/economies/industries/'sectors' in a country change over time? It's pretty clear how you feel about the mines, and your feelings toward MT on that, fair enough. But, at some point, that change probably would have happened.

 

Economies are constantly adapting and changing, we as a country have to change and adapt with that, or risk falling behind, especially to developing countries, with less entrenched industries and vested interests, that can slow down change or progression as they fear change.

 

I totally agree though, governments Red & Blue, have failed to adapt and keep a finger on the pulse as it were. We have discussed my troubles in coming to the 'job market', as it were, and I'm going to spend a lot of time paying off that £20k debt I amassed, on top of all the interest that has accrued.

 

Despite that, I can only see things getting worse in the short-medium term with student debts set to double further still! My other half qualified as a doctor last year, and has in excess of £30k debt, at £9k per year tution and rising cost of living - it's easy to see the amount of debt for student doctors getting on for £50k. That's a scary thought.

[badgerx16]

Glenda Jackson is an embarrassment. She should have stuck to the theatre where she was not so clearly and horribly out of her depth.

 

And how exactly is David Cameron "qualified" to be in Parliament ?

[trousers]

Despite everything, this country is still the one I love the most. However, the main thrust of that article is the Social Progress Index, and your main point lies in Britain being a technically advanced country.

 

There are better places to live in terms of quality of life and opportunity. There are countries that have technological showpieces that make us look like shire horse exhibitors at a village fair. There are also countries where people have more of an influence in the direction of their country.

 

I cannot deny that Britain has been a good package for me, but then I was lucky enough to be handed down a decent brain, born in a time when the cost of higher education was low enough not to be prohibitive and began my career at a time when I was competing with fellow Britons, not the assembled masses of Eastern Europe ( or in my career case, India ).

 

That all said, just as you'd probably acknowledge you had an easier time than me ( just because of your age and benefits at the time ), I have to acknowledge that the current generation have even fewer opportunities than I did - and that long-term, governments are doing little to replace the jobs that have been gutted from the economy.

 

Fair post - cheers

[bridge too far]

And how exactly is David Cameron "qualified" to be in Parliament ?

 

He went to Eton, silly

[trousers]

He went to Eton, silly

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2012/10/politics-and-class

[CB Saint]

Glenda Jackson is an embarrassment. She should have stuck to the theatre where she was not so clearly and horribly out of her depth.

 

I may not agree with her politics or the hatchet job that she did yesterday, however at least she has worked in the real world, Unlike DC (ignoring a short marketing stint), ED and NC

[CB Saint]

He went to Eton, silly

 

You have a real hang up with someone going to eton - why shouldn't a family who is wealthy choose to send their son to the school and why should this preclude that child from being capable of being prime minister?

[bridge too far]

You have a real hang up with someone going to eton - why shouldn't a family who is wealthy choose to send their son to the school and why should this preclude that child from being capable of being prime minister?

 

I don't have a 'hang up' at all. Someone asked what qualification Cameron had to be PM. I pointed out that, like a lot of the current government, he went to Eton. Those who selected him firstly to stand as an MP and then as Conservative party leader obviously felt this to be a relevant qualification.

 

Having said that, if I were to win the lottery this week, there's no way I'd offer to pay for my grandchildren to go to private / public schools.

[trousers]

if I were to win the lottery this week, there's no way I'd offer to pay for my grandchildren to go to private / public schools.

 

Why not? I thought distributing wealth was a good thing...?

[CB Saint]

I don't have a 'hang up' at all. Someone asked what qualification Cameron had to be PM. I pointed out that, like a lot of the current government, he went to Eton. Those who selected him firstly to stand as an MP and then as Conservative party leader obviously felt this to be a relevant qualification.

 

Having said that, if I were to win the lottery this week, there's no way I'd offer to pay for my grandchildren to go to private / public schools.

 

I think that is a little bit assumptive on your part. May be 50 years ago, unlikely to be a criteria today.

 

As a side note, it is highly probable that the UK's greatest living prime minister (serving or otherwise) is John Major.

[bridge too far]

Why not? I thought distributing wealth was a good thing...?

 

But I wouldn't want to 'distribute' it to elitist educational establishments. It's not like my grandchildren would gain anything from going to such schools.

[trousers]

But I wouldn't want to 'distribute' it to elitist educational establishments. It's not like my grandchildren would gain anything from going to such schools.

 

http://www.etoncollege.com/summaryofpublicbenefit.aspx

[CB Saint]

But I wouldn't want to 'distribute' it to elitist educational establishments. It's not like my grandchildren would gain anything from going to such schools.

 

I think there is a distinct difference in the types of fee paying schools out there. There are the uber expensive harrows and etons of the world which are elitist if purely because the fees are so high that 99% of the population are excluded on that basis. at the other end is school such as King Edwards. Most of the kids there are from middle income backgrounds and are certainly not elitist. I was sent to this school for two reasons, the local comp was carp and there were a lot of teachers strikes at the time so my parents made a decision to take me out of state education.

 

There are some great state schools if you are lucky enough to be the catchment (Thorden), however if not, private schools offer a good level of teaching and facilities that otherwise would be down to a bit of a postcode lottery.

[View From The Top]

The title of this thread makes me smile every time I come into The Lounge.

[bridge too far]

I think there is a distinct difference in the types of fee paying schools out there. There are the uber expensive harrows and etons of the world which are elitist if purely because the fees are so high that 99% of the population are excluded on that basis. at the other end is school such as King Edwards. Most of the kids there are from middle income backgrounds and are certainly not elitist. I was sent to this school for two reasons, the local comp was carp and there were a lot of teachers strikes at the time so my parents made a decision to take me out of state education.

 

There are some great state schools if you are lucky enough to be the catchment (Thorden), however if not, private schools offer a good level of teaching and facilities that otherwise would be down to a bit of a postcode lottery.

 

I remember the days when King Edward's was a first-rate state school before it was allowed to go independent.

[View From The Top]

I think there is a distinct difference in the types of fee paying schools out there. There are the uber expensive harrows and etons of the world which are elitist if purely because the fees are so high that 99% of the population are excluded on that basis. at the other end is school such as King Edwards. Most of the kids there are from middle income backgrounds and are certainly not elitist. I was sent to this school for two reasons, the local comp was carp and there were a lot of teachers strikes at the time so my parents made a decision to take me out of state education.

 

There are some great state schools if you are lucky enough to be the catchment (Thorden), however if not, private schools offer a good level of teaching and facilities that otherwise would be down to a bit of a postcode lottery.

 

I work in an area where parents, mainly Asian, are desperate for their kids to get into the excellent B'ham grammar schools and the amount they shell out in tuition fees is scary.

 

The local schools that aren't utter sh.it have house prices way, way, way above the local averages in the catchment areas.

 

It almost becomes self fulfilling as the sh.it schools get the absolute dross as students and have a massive staff turnover and the new staff are usually NQT and usually last 2/3 years before moving on. Despite millions being chucked at academy new builds, up here, nowt has changed as the intake hasn't changed.

 

Whilst I'm personally against fee paying schools I fully understand why parents, when robbed of genuine choice, resort to it.

[badgerx16]

I remember the days when King Edward's was a first-rate state school ....

 

That'll be when I was there. :)

[trousers]

We can obviously dismiss this as its a Thatcher sycophant but for those that like a good old fashioned scoff at this kinda thing, fill yer boots...

 

http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2013/04/11/a-few-numbers-on-the-thatcher-years/

 

A few numbers on the Thatcher years

 

By JOHNREDWOOD | Published: APRIL 11, 2013

Listening to the shriller critics of Margaret Thatcher, they claim that she uniquely divided the country. They attribute to her job losses and pit closures, implying either that she wanted this or that it was the result of her uncaring policies.

 

They should read a little more of the history of post war Britain. In the early 1950s the National Coal Board, the new nationalised coal industry, employed 700,000 people. By the time Margaret Thatcher took office in 1979 465,000 or two thirds of the entire workforce had lost their jobs. These losses occured under Conservative and Labour governments. They pursued a consensus policy of nationalised subsidised monopoly closing pit after pit on the grounds that the losses on individual pits were too great or the coal was exhausted. No-one seems to attack those governments for doing so much damage to pits and mining communities.

 

In the mid 1970s the nationalised steel industry under Labour was in deep trouble. Around 40,000 jobs were shed. Between 1950 and 1967 the nationalised rail industry removed 300,000 jobs, a collosal figure. Not all these related to the Beeching cuts, continuing under the Labour government.

 

The best way to lose your job was to work for a nationalised industry. That is one of the reasons a few of us thought we needed a new model for industrial organisation in the 1980s.

During the Thatcher years manufacturing output expanded by 7.5%. That was not a huge increase, but it belies the image of a government allowing or deliberately encouraging the decline of industry. Much of our time was spent trying to find new ways to encourage investment and innovation in the industrial opportunities of the future. The UK motor industry commenced its important resurrection with big inward investment of money and talent from abroad.

By way of contrast manufacturing output at the end of Labour’s period in office in 2010 was a little lower than it was in the last year of Margaret Thatcher. Mr Brown did not discover how to stop industrial decline on his watch.

[bridge too far]

That'll be when I was there. :)

 

And I was at the girls' school (almost) next door

[saintfully]

Do try to keep up:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scandalhit-mid-staffordshire-nhs-trust-to-be-put-into-administration-8514576.html

 

Not that I'd claim it's all bad you understand ...

 

I'm sorry, I had no idea you were Lord D, I've always found him to be an intelligent poster (albiet one I disagree with). Why not use the same user-name rather than ponce about with two?

 

Of course, if you're not Lord D then wtf are you on about? I was asking about his Missus experiences - genuinely curious.

As you correctly point out, you'd have to be an idiot not to have heard of mid-staffs and an idiot not to have thought everyone else writing on this thread would have too.

 

Do try and keep up old man.

[trousers]

Joey's spoken.... NOW I'm converted....

 

http://www.joeybarton.com/margaret-thatcher-a-legacy-fueled-by-greed/

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Joey's spoken.... NOW I'm converted....

 

http://www.joeybarton.com/margaret-thatcher-a-legacy-fueled-by-greed/

 

Wise words on greed from the £60,000 a week footballer. Thanks for that Joey.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I'm sorry, I had no idea you were Lord D, I've always found him to be an intelligent poster (albiet one I disagree with). Why not use the same user-name rather than ponce about with two?

 

Of course, if you're not Lord D then wtf are you on about? I was asking about his Missus experiences - genuinely curious.

As you correctly point out, you'd have to be an idiot not to have heard of mid-staffs and an idiot not to have thought everyone else writing on this thread would have too.

 

Do try and keep up old man.

 

Well my advice to you is that if you're going to post publicly on here you better be prepared to join in a open discussion with other SWF members. This is surely implicit when you join any Forum. However if you really must converse with one specific SWF member only, then this website does provide a purpose designed Private Message ('PM') facility specifically design for that very contingency.

 

Should you require any further assistance as to the use of this feature then please don't hesitate to ask - always happy to help.

 

Re the NHS question, due to the scale and wide spread publicity given to the Mid Staffs scandal the sheer naïveté of your post had forced me to conclude that you must somehow still be unaware of this important development. Reading your post again, I must say this assumption doesn't seem a entirely unreasonable one.

[Hamilton Saint]

Glenda Jackson is an embarrassment. She should have stuck to the theatre where she was not so clearly and horribly out of her depth.

 

Says you. You'd rather have Parliament dominated by lawyers and business-types? People whose primary motivations are self-promotion and acquisition. It's good to have MPs from a wide variety of backgrounds - people with a sense of compassion, for example - who care about other people, and who want to improve and protect cultural and educational institutions.

[saintfully]

Well my advice to you is that if you're going to post publicly on here you better be prepared to join in a open discussion with other SWF members. This is surely implicit when you join any Forum. However if you really must converse with one specific SWF member only, then this website does provide a purpose designed Private Message ('PM') facility specifically design for that very contingency.

 

Should you require any further assistance as to the use of this feature then please don't hesitate to ask - always happy to help.

 

Re the NHS question, due to the scale and wide spread publicity given to the Mid Staffs scandal the sheer naïveté of your post had forced me to conclude that you must somehow still be unaware of this important development. Reading your post again, I must say this assumption doesn't seem a entirely unreasonable one.

 

You again! Crumbs it’s like being attacked by an angry aging hoverfly – it looks like it might sting you, but hasn’t got any bite.

 

Firstly, ‘naïveté’ - in English that’s written as naivety and as much I’m sure you’d like using the French spelling to suggest the coolness and sophistication of your avatar, in fact it indicates that never has the association been more misplaced.

 

Secondly, the observation that it is naïve to ask Lord D for his wife’s examples of waste etc is I would say rather naïve in itself. It says to me that you believe that in every department in all hospitals there is eye-popping waste, poor care and laziness visible for all staff to see – and yet do nothing about. I think you’ve been reading too many crap papers.

 

Thirdly, thanks for the advice. But, assuming that wasn’t a really lame attempt at sarcasm, I already knew about the PM feature. Rather, I was hoping Lord D would bring his wife’s experiences to the table as a discussion point. It’s really useful to have some first-hand evidence. I’ve no doubt there is a lot of waste and examples of poor nursing and laziness – I simply wanted to know some examples to consider whether there is an explanation beyond the fact that the NHS is a large public institution. There may not be – but I’d like an example to talk about from someone (second-hand) who actually works in a hospital.

 

What a proper Charlie!

[View From The Top]

You again! Crumbs it’s like being attacked by an angry aging hoverfly – it looks like it might sting you, but hasn’t got any bite.

 

Firstly, ‘naïveté’ - in English that’s written as naivety and as much I’m sure you’d like using the French spelling to suggest the coolness and sophistication of your avatar, in fact it indicates that never has the association been more misplaced.

 

Secondly, the observation that it is naïve to ask Lord D for his wife’s examples of waste etc is I would say rather naïve in itself. It says to me that you believe that in every department in all hospitals there is eye-popping waste, poor care and laziness visible for all staff to see – and yet do nothing about. I think you’ve been reading too many crap papers.

 

Thirdly, thanks for the advice. But, assuming that wasn’t a really lame attempt at sarcasm, I already knew about the PM feature. Rather, I was hoping Lord D would bring his wife’s experiences to the table as a discussion point. It’s really useful to have some first-hand evidence. I’ve no doubt there is a lot of waste and examples of poor nursing and laziness – I simply wanted to know some examples to consider whether there is an explanation beyond the fact that the NHS is a large public institution. There may not be – but I’d like an example to talk about from someone (second-hand) who actually works in a hospital.

 

What a proper Charlie!

 

Top put down.

[aintforever]

I went to a comprehensive school during the Thatcher years and it was truly awful. Totally under-funded, think we went on one school trip the whole time I was there (Fishbourne). My mates year went to Stonehenge but they couldn't afford entry so just parked on the roadside and looked at it through the fence. Teaching was terrible, many lessons consisted of the teacher putting on a video and just sitting there. horrendous bullying, fighting and depraved **** like girls getting fingered whilst in lessons etc.

 

I actually thought all schools were like this until a few years ago when we took on a new client at work which was a top private school in Surrey. I was astounded at the sort of schooling rich kids get in comparison. That's partly why I hated Thatcher so much.

[trousers]

I went to a comprehensive school between 1979 and 1986 and it was a brilliant school.

 

Not sure what having too polar opposite example proves? I guess it does suggest that the quality of the state education system isn 't totally governed by central government policy and that there must be local factors at play that also influence quality on the ground.

 

Maybe one local authority was more efficient at spending their school budget than the other? Maybe one area attracted better teachers over the other? Who knows. Its certainly not black and white.

Edited 11 April, 2013 by trousers

[trousers]

Top put down.

 

Top observation of a put down

[Jonnyboy]

You again! Crumbs it’s like being attacked by an angry aging hoverfly – it looks like it might sting you, but hasn’t got any bite.

 

Firstly, ‘naïveté’ - in English that’s written as naivety and as much I’m sure you’d like using the French spelling to suggest the coolness and sophistication of your avatar, in fact it indicates that never has the association been more misplaced.

 

Secondly, the observation that it is naïve to ask Lord D for his wife’s examples of waste etc is I would say rather naïve in itself. It says to me that you believe that in every department in all hospitals there is eye-popping waste, poor care and laziness visible for all staff to see – and yet do nothing about. I think you’ve been reading too many crap papers.

 

Thirdly, thanks for the advice. But, assuming that wasn’t a really lame attempt at sarcasm, I already knew about the PM feature. Rather, I was hoping Lord D would bring his wife’s experiences to the table as a discussion point. It’s really useful to have some first-hand evidence. I’ve no doubt there is a lot of waste and examples of poor nursing and laziness – I simply wanted to know some examples to consider whether there is an explanation beyond the fact that the NHS is a large public institution. There may not be – but I’d like an example to talk about from someone (second-hand) who actually works in a hospital.

 

What a proper Charlie!

 

I think you were being invited to a private PM battle.

[Jonnyboy]

From the Durham Miners;

 

"Margaret Thatcher - an Obituary

 

Margaret Thatcher died in the Ritz Hotel on the morning of Monday 8 April 2013.

...

She first came to attention in 1970 when, as Minister of Education in the Heath government, she ended the supply of free school milk to school children over the age of 7.

 

She never understood why this caused so much resentment and why it earned her the title “Thatcher the milk snatcher”. It was this detachment and lack of empathy with ordinary people that was to define her political career.

 

Although highly educated, she had a simplistic philosophy. For Thatcher, the historic problems of British industry were caused, not by lack of investment and innovation, but by trade unions and strikes were caused not by grievances but by evil leaders.

 

To rectify this she introduced the most repressive anti-union legislation in Europe which, some claim, was her greatest achievement but those who have seen their wages outstripped by inflation year on year do not view it this way.

 

Her “economics of the housewife” led her to the conclusion that Britain would be better off without manufacturing industry and that banking and financial services should be liberated from state interference and regulation.

 

This policy spectacularly burst into in flames five years ago when the state had to “interfere” by bailing out almost the entire the banking system.

 

Those who inherited her ideology are now using the full force of the state to make the people of Britain pay for the orgy of greed that she encouraged so enthusiastically.

 

Many who loyally bought into her dream invested their hard-earned cash in pension funds and many have been duly informed that the promise of a comfortable retirement is not going to be honoured.

 

For some their pensions are next to worthless or have been stolen by fraudsters. These same pensioners are now at the mercy of the service industries she privatised with their price hikes and mis-selling scams. They have a right to be incensed, but this time they can’t blame the trade unions.

 

In the communities where once men and women worked in useful occupations, manufacturing useful commodities, we now have industrial deserts where hope for the young is dashed by the spectre of permanent unemployment. For the fortunate there is the low paid servitude of the call centres or the short time uncertainties of the service sector.

 

In her long term of office, she supported the apartheid regime of South Africa and dubbed Nelson Mandela a “terrorist”. She was a bosom friend of Chilean fascist dictator Pinochet who overthrew a democratically elected government and slaughtered thousands of Chilean workers including its elected president. She sunk the Belgrano when it posed no threat, and sent hundreds of young Argentinean cadets to their deaths.

 

But it is, of course, the destruction of our mining industry and the damage to our villages and towns that exercise our anger most. It is an often repeated in the media that in 1984 Arthur Scargill called a strike. It is a lie. He did not. The truth is that Margaret Thatcher deliberately provoked a strike.

 

After the appointment of Ian McGregor to the chairmanship of the National Coal Board, on 28 March 1983, which was a provocation in itself, pits closed piece meal throughout 1983. But this was not good enough for Thatcher. Her political agenda required the destruction and humiliation of the National Union of Mineworkers and to do so she was prepared to destroy the industry.

 

The announcement of a massive closure programme in February 1984 caused a strike at Cortonwood Colliery in Yorkshire, a colliery led by moderate miners not noted for their support of Scargill and from Cortonwood the strike spread spontaneously.

 

There is irrefutable evidence that the Tories had been preparing this confrontation prior to 1979 when they were still in opposition. Central to these preparations was the organisation of a mobile and nationally controlled police force capable of rapid deployment to the coalfields.

 

From the first day of the strike miners were denied their legal right to travel freely. They were regularly falsely arrested, beaten and framed. It was this systematic gratuitous state organised violence, which turned many moderate local miners’ leaders into militants. It steeled our communities, bound them together and made them more determined than ever not to allow state violence to win.

 

After a full year, the miners were defeated but Thatcher did not have long to savour her victory as Prime Minister. Her pigheaded imposition of the poll tax moved a people weary of the politics of greed to revolt. She became an embarrassment to her party and they brutally cast her aside.

 

When we say we celebrate her death, we are reflecting the deep and lasting bitterness of our mining communities – and felt across the entire working class – at the ravages of her brutal policies which destroyed the lives and prospects of so many people.

 

Even today, we see the legacy of her policies in the continued vandalism of the Tory-Lib-Dem coalition, this time aimed at dismantling the Welfare State. Thatcher infamously said, “There is no such thing as society”. She was the person who wrecked it.

[aintforever]

I went to a comprehensive school between 1979 and 1986 and it was a brilliant school.

 

Not sure what having too polar opposite example proves? I guess it does suggest that the quality of the state education system isn 't totally governed by central government policy and that there must be local factors at play that also influence quality on the ground.

 

Maybe one local authority was more efficient at spending their school budget than the other? Maybe one area attracted better teachers over the other? Who knows. Its certainly not black and white.

 

Not black and white but the government is responsible for education, if there are localised differences for whatever reason that is still the governments problem.

[CB Saint]

I work in an area where parents, mainly Asian, are desperate for their kids to get into the excellent B'ham grammar schools and the amount they shell out in tuition fees is scary.

 

The local schools that aren't utter sh.it have house prices way, way, way above the local averages in the catchment areas.

 

It almost becomes self fulfilling as the sh.it schools get the absolute dross as students and have a massive staff turnover and the new staff are usually NQT and usually last 2/3 years before moving on. Despite millions being chucked at academy new builds, up here, nowt has changed as the intake hasn't changed.

 

Whilst I'm personally against fee paying schools I fully understand why parents, when robbed of genuine choice, resort to it.

 

Good post

 

If all state funded schools were great, fee paying schools would cease to exist in the mainstream. I can remember being told that the thorden catchment was worth at least £50k to your house price, so it's not surprising people stay put and pay school fees instead.

[hypochondriac]

I loved my time at Saint Mary's College. Not bothered if someone thinks there was no benefit to me going there as there clearly was.

[Barry Sanchez]

I'm looking forward to question time tonight.

[trousers]

I'm looking forward to question time tonight.

 

Is Joey Barton on the panel?

[Jonnyboy]

Good post

 

If all state funded schools were great, fee paying schools would cease to exist in the mainstream. I can remember being told that the thorden catchment was worth at least £50k to your house price, so it's not surprising people stay put and pay school fees instead.

 

Thornden isnt fee paying is it? But house prices rise cos its a good school.

[Jonnyboy]

I loved my time at Saint Mary's College. Not bothered if someone thinks there was no benefit to me going there as there clearly was.

 

Yes, you were safely locked away from the rest of us.

[trousers]

Not black and white but the government is responsible for education, if there are localised differences for whatever reason that is still the governments problem.

 

Yep, agree, but if a local authority screws up the government isn't necessarily the root cause. Yes, they should be nipping local problems in the bud but I assumed the thrust of your observation was suggesting there was a fundamental problem across the board. Or maybe my experience of a good comprehensive in the Thatcher era was an exception to the rule. Our personal experiences don't necessarily reflect a national trend is what I'm trying to say. Were all hospitals as bad as Staffordshire under the last government for example?

Edited 11 April, 2013 by trousers

[View From The Top]

Yep, agree, but if a local authority screws up the government isn't necessarily the root cause. Yes, they should be nipping local problems in the bud but I assumed the thrust of your observation was suggesting there was a fundamental problem across the board. Or maybe my experience of a good comprehensive in the Thatcher era was an exception to the rule.

 

Problem is that government has washed their hands of it via the Academy system whilst cutting out local authorities.

 

When very liberal and, frankly, wishy washy unions like the ATL call for action, then you know it's bad. In all the years I've been involved, they usually just tut loudly!

[pap]

Thanks for the share, Jonnyboy. That was a good read.

[Barry Sanchez]

Is Joey Barton on the panel?

 

No but it would be amusing.