Jump to content

Maggie Thatcher has died


Saint-Armstrong

Recommended Posts

http://m.local.stv.tv/glasgow/news/220638-council-says-stay-away-from-george-square-party-for-thatcher/

 

Glasgow City Council has urged anyone planning to celebrate the death of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to "stay away" from George Square.

 

Social media websites were flooded on Monday afternoon following Mrs Thatcher's death from a stroke in London — with many planning a party to celebrate her passing.

 

One group on Facebook, Thatcher's Deed - Party in George Square - Tonight!, had more than 1000 followers saying they would be marking her passing in the civic space on Monday night, with a further 6500 people invited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to talk Thatcher's legacy, look no further than this site, this government and sort of right-wingers we have now. Cameron continues Thatcher's legacy in fine tradition; a shouty Prime Minister selling off parts of the state, putting the people forever in the hands of private industry. Or the demonisation of the poor. Same trick, 30 years later.

 

The right have no ideas left they can use, and were never very good at thinking the long-term consequences through in any event.

 

They cannot achieve their stated objective of getting people back into work because they, or people like them, moved those jobs out of the country years ago. They're not coming back, because the race to the bottom is a good thing too.

 

With the damage that Thatcher did to the wider manufacturing industry, and the financial services industry being exposed for the "all losses covered" casino that it is, does any right winger think we're going to do anything to address the balance of trade? You think we're going to "capitalist" our way out of this situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the people saying about rubbish piling up in the street, well that happened a few months ago, to the people saying she came to power when there was social unrest, well thats here now.

The people defending her made money on their houses in the main, a rosetinted look back , they forget the privatized silverware that was already ours in the first place.

 

Not to mention the sh!thole that Southampton was on a visit a while ago.

 

All the bins were taped up. Rubbish bags everywhere; even Highfield looked a total sh!theap.

 

Tory-led UK government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually glad I'm working away and won't be at home in Sheffield tonight. I live in an ex-mining village that is as much of a Labour stronghold as you could possibly imagine. I expect the locals are out putting up the bunting already.

 

As for me, well I don't claim to really know enough about politics to make any kind of informed judgement. She obviously did a lot of good in re-building the British economy, but the cost of this to working class communities was obviously very high.

 

I have to say I'm very disappointed in some of the distasteful facebook comments I have seen today from some of my friends; one of them posting "Ding dong the witch is dead" even though she would have still been in nappies when Thatcher was ousted from power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe she is going to get the same style funeral as the Queen Mother and Diana, that is f*cked up.

 

I agreed with some of the things she did. The way we won the Falklands showed good leadership (though her cutbacks probably contributed to them being invaded). Other stuff she did to encourage small business was also good but the way she destroyed some communities up north was disgusting. she did alot of bad things and that should be recognised.

 

It's typical that she popped her clogs in the Ritz yet we are going to end up footing the bill for her lavish funeral. Hopefully some p!ssed up northerners will ruin the occasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A divisive leader certainly, but easily the most significant British politician of her era and since Churchill in my opinion. I didn't happen to like the women all that much to be honest - I would have voted for Jim Challahan in 1979 were I not 16 at the time - but all those who are old enough to remember the appalling state this country had fallen into at that time - and who are honest enough to accept that obvious truth - really have to concede that she was the right Prime Minister at the right time.

 

Just like Churchill she got plenty wrong in her time, indeed by the end of her reign the power had driven her more than a little mad methinks, but the key truth is that she stood up to the enemies of this great nation - both foreign and domestic - and she almost single handedly transformed this nation for the better in many ways.

 

So the greatest peacetime British Prime Minister then? Our history is a long and remarkable one and there are many notable candidates for that accolade, but the greatest I've seen in my lifetime for sure.

sorry i think clement attlee was that but i expect that was before your time .

Attlee's administration presided over the successful transition from a wartime economy to peacetime, tackling problems of demobilisation, shortages of foreign currency, and adverse deficits in trade balances and government expenditure. Further domestic policies that he brought about included the establishment of the National Health Service and post-war Welfare State, which became key to the reconstruction of post-war Britain. Attlee and his ministers did much to transform Britain into a more prosperous and egalitarian society during their time in office with reductions in poverty and a rise in the general economic security of the population.[9

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe she is going to get the same style funeral as the Queen Mother and Diana, that is f*cked up.

 

I agreed with some of the things she did. The way we won the Falklands showed good leadership (though her cutbacks probably contributed to them being invaded). Other stuff she did to encourage small business was also good but the way she destroyed some communities up north was disgusting. she did alot of bad things and that should be recognised.

 

It's typical that she popped her clogs in the Ritz yet we are going to end up footing the bill for her lavish funeral. Hopefully some p!ssed up northerners will ruin the occasion.

 

i think the private sector with all that she has done for them and i,m sure she would agrees the state should not pay .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting to one side how the Thatcher government dealt with the mining situation in terms of the human impact (yes, I know that side of it is important) does anyone believe that the government of the time should have carried on pouring public money into what were failing businesses?

 

Given the mining industry was losing the country money what was the alternative to withdrawing subsidies for these loss making mines?

 

Serious question. As always, I'm happy to take onboard the 'nasty Tories' accusations but you rarely hear about alternatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe she is going to get the same style funeral as the Queen Mother and Diana, that is f*cked up.

 

I agreed with some of the things she did. The way we won the Falklands showed good leadership (though her cutbacks probably contributed to them being invaded). Other stuff she did to encourage small business was also good but the way she destroyed some communities up north was disgusting. she did alot of bad things and that should be recognised.

 

It's typical that she popped her clogs in the Ritz yet we are going to end up footing the bill for her lavish funeral. Hopefully some p!ssed up northerners will ruin the occasion.

 

Somewhat ironically it'll be said "****ed up northerners" who'll end up costing the taxpayer more due to the increased levels of security that'll be required...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm happy for some of my tax to be diverted to pay for the funeral. There may be a few others too.

 

I'm not; given how much she favoured individualism and self-sufficiency, rather than state intervention and public-funding. It's not as if her family are poor is it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting to one side how the Thatcher government dealt with the mining situation in terms of the human impact (yes, I know that side of it is important) does anyone believe that the government of the time should have carried on pouring public money into what were failing businesses?

 

Given the mining industry was losing the country money what was the alternative to withdrawing subsidies for these loss making mines?

 

Serious question. As always, I'm happy to take onboard the 'nasty Tories' accusations but you rarely hear about alternatives.

 

Closing the mines had more to go with the "dash for gas" and the newly privatised British Gas.

 

We now import coal & gas on a colossal scale making us hostage to Russia & Nigeria amongst others.

 

We could of easily invested in "clean" coal, especially as we are an island with such rich coal seams but it would appear that private business prefers to import coal from Poland & the share holders in BG wanted a good dividend.

 

It was typically short sighted. The industry needed modernising, she destroyed it to destroy the unions and now, all of us, pay for it with our bills.

 

Energy security should be near the top of any governments agenda IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually glad I'm working away and won't be at home in Sheffield tonight. I live in an ex-mining village that is as much of a Labour stronghold as you could possibly imagine. I expect the locals are out putting up the bunting already.

 

As for me, well I don't claim to really know enough about politics to make any kind of informed judgement. She obviously did a lot of good in re-building the British economy, but the cost of this to working class communities was obviously very high.

 

I have to say I'm very disappointed in some of the distasteful facebook comments I have seen today from some of my friends; one of them posting "Ding dong the witch is dead" even though she would have still been in nappies when Thatcher was ousted from power.

 

I've just got back from an ex-mining village. They are all out celebrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting to one side how the Thatcher government dealt with the mining situation in terms of the human impact (yes, I know that side of it is important) does anyone believe that the government of the time should have carried on pouring public money into what were failing businesses?

 

Given the mining industry was losing the country money what was the alternative to withdrawing subsidies for these loss making mines?

 

Serious question. As always, I'm happy to take onboard the 'nasty Tories' accusations but you rarely hear about alternatives.

 

Something that has been all too often conveniently forgotten by Thatcher bashers. With the miners she cocked it up because she cut WAY too far but the industries were already unsustainable long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry i think clement attlee was that but i expect that was before your time .

Attlee's administration presided over the successful transition from a wartime economy to peacetime, tackling problems of demobilisation, shortages of foreign currency, and adverse deficits in trade balances and government expenditure. Further domestic policies that he brought about included the establishment of the National Health Service and post-war Welfare State, which became key to the reconstruction of post-war Britain. Attlee and his ministers did much to transform Britain into a more prosperous and egalitarian society during their time in office with reductions in poverty and a rise in the general economic security of the population.[9

 

Attlee was indeed before my time and became Prime Minister while the war was still ongoing of course, I wouldn't however for one moment suggest that his government didn't many achieve remarkable things in the most difficult of circumstances. Few will argue that the NHS wasn't a good development for the ordinary people of this country and even State control of the Railways and Mines ...etc was popular at the time. Perhaps history will judge that Nationalisation is what connects these two very different Prime Ministers - one gave it birth while the other did what she could to kill if off in many ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dont agree with celebrating her death, that is just wrong but a lot that is still wrong with the country was her and those that followed fault. I wonder if any of those that were so strongly protesting the poll tax are now jumping on the "she was a wonderful woman" bandwagon
Mike the poll tax is a fair tax.everyoone pays in,somebody who lives at home alone should not pay as much council tax as a household with 2or3 wage earners.they use 2or3times the services a person who lives alone does
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike the poll tax is a fair tax.everyoone pays in,somebody who lives at home alone should not pay as much council tax as a household with 2or3 wage earners.they use 2or3times the services a person who lives alone does

 

The better bet here would be a local income tax, those who can afford it pay, those who can't, don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike the poll tax is a fair tax.everyoone pays in,somebody who lives at home alone should not pay as much council tax as a household with 2or3 wage earners.they use 2or3times the services a person who lives alone does

 

. . . but in a lot of cases can't afford to pay the tax.

 

That's why it caused rioting over here and was the policy which was the beginning of the end of her downfall, to the point where even her closest allies were united against her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We now import coal & gas on a colossal scale making us hostage to Russia & Nigeria amongst others.

 

 

Indeed, short term political opportunism leaving a long term economic problem :

 

"Currently 30% of the electricity we use is generated from coal-fired power stations..." "...70% of the coal used to generate the nation’s energy is imported from places such as Russia, South Africa and Colombia" ( http://www.ukcoal.com/why-coal/need-for-coal/the-need-for-coal )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if their sons - not now doomed to follow their fathers down the pit - think about it.

 

Doomed to go down the pit? You've not a clue mate. They were well paid jobs and included everything from those digging it out to engineers keeping it all going. Skilled jobs, with proper apprenticeships that have never been replaced.

 

If they re-opened the deep pits now they'd be no shortage of men (and women no doubt) to do it.

Edited by View From The Top
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

did you say that as you looked in the mirror?

 

What a knobber you are. Stick to bleating about how the skates have gotten away with it as you are fu.cking clueless about everything. I would imagine you struggle to actually walk and talk at the same time.

Edited by View From The Top
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The better bet here would be a local income tax, those who can afford it pay, those who can't, don't.
strangely in a way we got that as the government just upped vat when they scrapped the poll tax.

No tax is fair but the principle of everyone paying is fairer than the way it is now. We had 3wage earners in my house at 1stage all using street lighting , council services, the parks and local facilities and paying the same council tax as the old lady next door. Is that fair? Surely very un-socialist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, short term political opportunism leaving a long term economic problem :

 

"Currently 30% of the electricity we use is generated from coal-fired power stations..." "...70% of the coal used to generate the nation’s energy is imported from places such as Russia, South Africa and Colombia" ( http://www.ukcoal.com/why-coal/need-for-coal/the-need-for-coal )

 

Not to mention all the LPG now being imported from West Africa into Milford Haven

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Given the mining industry was losing the country money what was the alternative to withdrawing subsidies for these loss making mines?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/coal-mines-named-for-closure-were-profitable-1559633.html ( from 1992 )

 

"John T Boyd, a firm of American mining specialists hired by the corporation last year, named Parkside, Trentham, Betws, Grimethorpe and Houghton Main as collieries that were commercially viable"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a knobber you are. Stick to bleating about how the skates have gotten away with it and you are fu.cking clueless about everything. I would imagine you struggle to actually walk and talk at the same time.
lol look at the upset maths teacher who gets all uppity when he gets a bit back , someone who likes to dish it out but can't take it back lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The poll tax wasn't Thatcher's idea. She wanted to get rid of the local rates system and pay for local services from central funding. She had to be convinced by her cabinet that not linking local services to a local tax system was the wrong way to go as people wanted to see that direct link between what you pay for and what you receive at a local level. She was reluctantly converted to the idea of an individual local tax system (aka the poll tax) and only became dogmatic about it once converted as she didn't like to stop something she had already started (something people criticise this current government of doing).

 

So to vilify Thatcher for the poll tax isn't telling the whole story - she didn't want to introduce it but people tend not to delve beneath the headlines...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doomed to go done the pit? You've not a clue mate. They were well paid jobs and included everything from those digging it out to engineers keeping it all going. Skilled jobs, with proper apprenticeships that have never been replaced.

 

If they re-opened the deep pits now they'd be no shortage of men (and women no doubt) to do it.

 

Well I used to work with a chap who spent the best years of his life down a pit - and paid the price for that with his health. You can rest assured that the grim realties of colliery life were a site less rosy than you think they were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike the poll tax is a fair tax.everyoone pays in,somebody who lives at home alone should not pay as much council tax as a household with 2or3 wage earners.they use 2or3times the services a person who lives alone does
its not fair the family of 3 could be low wage earners and then you could have a millionaire with a mansion paying a the same rate has a single person.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike the poll tax is a fair tax.everyoone pays in,somebody who lives at home alone should not pay as much council tax as a household with 2or3 wage earners.they use 2or3times the services a person who lives alone does

 

Rather than simply fling insults, this is the opposing perspective :

 

"Protesters complained that the tax shifted from the estimated price of a house to the number of people living in it, with the effect of shifting the tax burden from the rich to the poor. Owner-occupiers paid because they could not hide; for those in the expensive properties it cost less than rates had but for many it cost more; some renters did not pay, knowing they would be long gone when the bills arrived. Councils of towns with highly mobile populations, such as university towns, were faced with big store rooms of un-processed "gone-aways".

The initial register was greatly irregular. It was based on the rates register for "owned" houses with lots of other unreliable data such as housing benefit recipients.

The big collection issue was the 20%/100% split. People in employment had to pay 100%, students and the registered unemployed paid 20%. The nature of the shared house market meant that not even the landlord knew exactly who was living there; tenants were replaced, and may have shared a "single" room with their partner. So the local council had no idea who was living where and when.

"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its not fair the family of 3 could be low wage earners and then you could have a millionaire with a mansion paying a the same rate has a single person.

True but in the main the 3low wage earners would be living next to an old lady struggling on a pension. Surely in a fair society we all should pay in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/coal-mines-named-for-closure-were-profitable-1559633.html ( from 1992 )

 

"John T Boyd, a firm of American mining specialists hired by the corporation last year, named Parkside, Trentham, Betws, Grimethorpe and Houghton Main as collieries that were commercially viable"

 

Thatcher didn't actually close any mines - she withdrew public funding. So, if these collieries were profitable then they would/should have survived anyway. Some were profitable, some weren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than simply fling insults, this is the opposing perspective :

 

"Protesters complained that the tax shifted from the estimated price of a house to the number of people living in it, with the effect of shifting the tax burden from the rich to the poor. Owner-occupiers paid because they could not hide; for those in the expensive properties it cost less than rates had but for many it cost more; some renters did not pay, knowing they would be long gone when the bills arrived. Councils of towns with highly mobile populations, such as university towns, were faced with big store rooms of un-processed "gone-aways".

The initial register was greatly irregular. It was based on the rates register for "owned" houses with lots of other unreliable data such as housing benefit recipients.

The big collection issue was the 20%/100% split. People in employment had to pay 100%, students and the registered unemployed paid 20%. The nature of the shared house market meant that not even the landlord knew exactly who was living there; tenants were replaced, and may have shared a "single" room with their partner. So the local council had no idea who was living where and when.

"

But isn't that the problem with all taxes, not all being fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thatcher didn't actually close any mines - she withdrew public funding. So, if these collieries were profitable then they would/should have survived anyway. Some were profitable, some weren't.

 

Have you ever seen Brassed Off ? A very thinly disguised tale of the closure of Grimethorpe Colliery. The facts about their economic status were ignored by effectively bribing the men to vote for redundancy. ( And whilst Major may have pulled the trigger, Thatcher loaded the gun ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isn't that the problem with all taxes, not all being fair?

 

There will always be 'winners' and 'losers' - the problem with Thatcher's Government, as with the current shambles, was/is the perception that a change in taxation is shifting the burden towards the less well off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isn't that the problem with all taxes, not all being fair?

 

The Poll Tax was a complete disaster, even most Tories admit that now. It was completely unfair, a millionaire living in a mansion paying less than a few people holed up in some sh!t hole flat. Just like with income tax, it should be based on ability to pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. It was one of her wishes not to have a state funeral (something I assume she was entitled to?)

 

According to a BBC article written at the time the Queen Mum died, and linked somewhere on the Guardian site today, the differences between a state funeral and a ceremonial funeral are very subtle.

 

The main one is that with a ceremonial funeral, the deceased doesnt lay in state for any period at all. The vigil for the Queen Mum was not laying in state. Churchill laid in state.

 

The other one is concerning which elements of the Armed Forces transport the coffin to the funeral service. Apparently a state funeral offers up a horse-driven gun carriage, and a ceremonial funeral involves sailors. Well, that was what I understood anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thatcher didn't actually close any mines - she withdrew public funding. So, if these collieries were profitable then they would/should have survived anyway. Some were profitable, some weren't.

 

History may have been on the wrong side of some industries but where was the genuine commitment fiscally and philosophically -the investment in skills, infrastructure and productive capacity- to help those areas to get back on their feet and make the transition to new, productive activities? Benign neglect is being charitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever seen Brassed Off ? A very thinly disguised tale of the closure of Grimethorpe Colliery. The facts about their economic status were ignored by effectively bribing the men to vote for redundancy. ( And whilst Major may have pulled the trigger, Thatcher loaded the gun ).
Industries have opened and closed throughout history - it's tough, but such is life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...