[Closed] Thatcher's died according to BBC

So its not the Labour party at fault- just a rogue entity? He slipped in through the net didn't he. A plant, Brown et al were all there to sabotage the workers dreams?

Did a bloody good job of it.

Oh, it is most certainly the Labour party at fault. We went from having a party on the right and a party on the left to having a party on the right and a party on the slightly further right.

Her mystical powers know no end Ben!?!

Yes, Hora... Very clever. You're right though. Her influence evaporated the day she left Downing street, and was confined exclusively to coal mining.

Anyone who didn't live through it, is not entitled to an opinion? Particularly as her continued legacy has lead to massive youth unemployment (a price worth paying, remember), the removal of housing benefit, and 9 grand a year tution fees, amongst many other things

So... I'd say that any 20 year old looking into her Legacy and expressing an opinion is a good thing, no? Considering the position they presently find themselves in. Or would you rather we had a generation of the apathetic, so the politicians can get away with murder, and somehow someone finally manages to be more politically clueless then even you
[img] [/img]

Oh, it is most certainly the Labour party at fault. We went from having a party on the right and a party on the left to having a party on the right and a party on the slightly further right.

How was Labour's collective failure anything to do with an old lady who had been forced out by her own party?

Binners, reel him in. Hes more of a fantasist than you.

The Margaret jar is very clever.

How was Labour's collective failure anything to do with an old lady who had been forced out by her own party?

There wouldn't be New Labour without Thatcher. She started the deregulation of the financial system, she started the selloff of public assets, she introduced the idea that there was no such thing as society - everyone is in it for themselves.

I don't see anything wrong with the tuition fees, it's like an extra test to see if you are clever enough to go to university.
Borrow some money to further educate yourself, then when you are earning plenty, thanks to your education, you pay it back.
If you don't earn enough, you don't pay it back.

I suppose another way of doing it is to rely on those you've given the means to make a lot of money to pay back into society off their own backs.
Unfortunately, this is what Thatcher tried and it didn't work. People are greedy and selfish.

bencooper she was ousted, thrown out by her own party. They didn't want her. That was over two decades ago.

She's not the boogyman you know.

bencooper - Member

she introduced the idea that there was no such thing as society - everyone is in it for themselves.

You've misunderstood that quote.
She didn't want people to be selfish, she wanted people to take responsibility for themselves.

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

bencooper she was ousted, thrown out by her own party. They didn't want her.

Not strictly true. They still adored her, as emotionally retarded, sexually repressed public schoolboys, with a matron fixation, that they always were/are

But they were bright enough to know that she was now so despised by the electorate that if she lead them into the next election, they would lose it for sure

Labour were in the same boat before the last election with Brown. But the labour party doesn't possess the electorally ruthless streak of the Tories. Actually... they're still in the same boat now with Wallace. But again, they'll do nowt. Too spineless

I do love whataboutery, it's a good sign of when someone has completely run out of argument.

Using it to argue every point is a sign of something else entirely though.

Labour were in the same boat before the last election with Brown. But the labour party doesn't possess the electorally ruthless streak of the Tories.

Was Brown as much of an electoral liability as Thatcher was, (well, actually her utterly blind insistence on pursuing the Poll Tax) at the time she was ousted?

Labour lost the 2010 election by how many seats? I heard on R4 the other day that alongside the cabinet that did the ousting, there were in the region of [b]150[/b] Tory Mp's in marginal seats saying the poll tax (and therefore Thatcher) was going to lose them their seats and the Conservative party the General Election.

Labour were in the same boat before the last election with Brown

Do you think if Tony had still been in charge they'd have done better, or had people started to hate him enough by then? I still can't help thinking that he had some inkling of what was coming and got out whilst the going was good. Clearly I've also forgotten already who else it was lined up to take his place who was going to do better - it's not as if they were all clamoring to have that task (and in the long term surely everybody knew it would be a good election to lose - well everybody except Nick anyway).

Actually... they're still in the same boat now with Wallace.

Do you really think he's poor enough to lose them it given how unpopular the Tories are making themselves? I'm really baffled by some of the things they're doing - as pointed out, a lot of them are totally unnecessary and also extremely unpopular - it's almost like they don't think one poll tax is enough this time round.

9 grand a year tution fees

Yeah well that might have quite a lot to do with Blair's desire to dramatically increase the numbers in HE thus both increasing the cost and devaluing the value of HE - plus there aren't any more graduates needed anyway so many end up unemployed...funny that.

I'd agree with all of that aracer. Blair milked it and then picked the perfect moment to leave. ie: when it all came home to roost. And it was certainly a good election to lose. As will this one, as the tories present suicidal economic policies will be coming home to roost by then too.

I think the Tories knew they were a one term government right from the off, and are setting about doing as much irreversible ideologically-driven damage as possible before the inevitable loss. Then when the Lib/Lab coalition take over they're going to be faced with choices that are going to make this present term look like a picnic

Do you really think he's poor enough to lose them it given how unpopular the Tories are making themselves?

Yes.
-media/personality: remember how popular Clegg was made by the a couple of good telly appearances and lots of positive press. The same can be done with Cameron I am sure.
-you can fool lots of people with a manifesto that only bears a passing resemblance with what you really want to do.
-relatively low numbers of "swingable" voters.
-relatively low numbers of swing seats.

*affects poorly-informed pub bore voice*
The wild card is UKIP either splitting the conservative vote enough to lose them lots of marginals, or fighting the election on the Euro referendum and somehow that backfiring. Otherwise Cameron will have to actually bite the head off a child on Newsnight no to win next time.

[EDIT] actually what Binners said make sense too. But is anyone (well, anyone not 'protest voting' against the labour or conservative incumbent in a safe seat as I suppose I might consider doing. Again.) actually going to vote lib dem now?

There is no doubt that the financial services industry grew rapidly from the 1980s up until the 2008 crisis. But this concept of 'liberal' deregulation - as in some kind of free-for-all - seems quite at odds with my memories of the time.

So during Thatcher:

1. A previously privately regulated (sic) old boys club (stockbroking) was ended with regulation transferring from the players themselves to the state
2. (From above) insider dealing was made illegal (1980) - and anyone who worked in the industry knows how widespread it was
3. The level of bank capital came under new state regulation (Basle 1)
4. New qualifications were required for industry participants - irritating exams!
5. Deposit insurance was introduced to protect depositors
6. Life insurance was re-regulated
7. Selling financial products (savings, insurance) regulated

Not exactly a wild free-for-all.

is anyone (well, anyone not 'protest voting' against the labour or conservative incumbent in a safe seat as I suppose I might consider doing. Again.) actually going to vote lib dem now?

Strangely enough I would, but then I didn't have the same expectations as many of the traditional LibDem supporters seemingly did, and I'm capable of seeing beyond the fact they lied, because they all do that. They were never going to be able to do all the stuff those who feel betrayed think they should have. That's always of course assuming they manage to field a candidate who isn't quite so awful as the one we had here last time (unlike the Conservative candidate he didn't bother moving to the area, and pretty much all of his campaigning seemed to be negative stuff).

mudshark - Member

Yeah well that might have quite a lot to do with Blair's desire to dramatically increase the numbers in HE thus both increasing the cost and devaluing the value of HE - plus there aren't any more graduates needed anyway so many end up unemployed...funny that.

But, but, but, it's their 'ooman right to go to university!

@binners - have they uncovered your real identity?

[url= http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/labour-official-apologises-jibe-margaret-2586869 ]http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/labour-official-apologises-jibe-margaret-2586869[/url]

😀 😀

The NUM was 'attacked' by the Thatcher Regime, they responded in the only way they could--withdraw their labour-- Scargill was their elected leader, with a huge mandate from the membership--more than any politician, he made have made some tactical mistakes--i e not calling on the TUC for support--he knew most of the lilly livered toads wouldn't have--but at least they would have been under pressure from their members--some workers took unilateral action--rail workers, dockers,and others where they could. I remember NACODs used the strike to enhance their pay etc , as did those scabs in the EEPTU-but to attempt to portray the Arthur Scargill as some sort of equivalent to Thatcher shows how bankrupt your thinking and ideology must be.

There is room for a huge debate on all the sell outs by the so called Labour party-- and yes for me Thatcher started the asset stripping, and the baton has been handed down to every govt since, some run a bit quicker than others, like the present lot of fools-- i suppose it says more about a political system than anything else, where with the approval of less than a fifth of the adult population you can wreak havoc on every one else and call it 'democracy'.....

CURSES!!! BUSTED! 😀

Asset stripping?

In the years leading upto Thatchers government many [b]LOSS making[/b] companies were nationalised.

In modern times its companies making massive [b]LOSSES[/b] like Northern pissing Rock that were nationalised (thanks again Labour), Bradford & Bingley (their loss making side) thanks again Labour. Then there was RBS. Oh cheers Labour! You are spoiling the taxpayer!

Scargill couldn't gather enough votes to go on strike so he changed the rules (lowering the amount).

Did you read history?

A quick look at the profits and dividends generated by the utility companies in the UK today leads me to believe that if the government had retained a major stake in them then not only would income be generated for the taxpayer but the government would have far greater say in when it comes to price hikes,director pay and bonuses,infrastructure investment and the like.
As I asked days ago where did all the money from privitisation and oil revenue go under Thatcher?

A quick look at the profits and dividends generated by the utility companies in the UK today leads me to believe that if the government had retained a major stake in them then not only would income be generated for the taxpayer but the government would have far greater say in when it comes to price hikes,director pay and bonuses,infrastructure investment and the like.
As I asked days ago where did all the money from privitisation and oil revenue go under Thatcher?

Where did the £22billion go Labour?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/727831.stm

Oh and on Utility companies- cronic under investment and high prices to consumers means big profits are there.

Need investment to rebuild/improve the creaking infrastructure? You ask the government for a loan and/or make your customers pay even more.

She's going to have part of Madrid named after her...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/12/margaret-thatcher-madrid-street-name?CMP=twt_fd

As for Northern Rock what was the alternative?
Savers losing their savings,staff being laid off with no redundancy pay apart from what the givernment would have been obliged to pay,all other banks that were owed money from NR getting into trouble and a possible run on the banking system?
Or share the pain by the government bailing them out?

As a miner said to me regarding any ballot. "Why do they want a ballot? It's because they want to vote against the strike but not be seen doing it! You know where you stand, if you were going to vote Yes you'll be out in any case".

Deregulation introduced by Margaret Thatcher was long overdue and was a positive in many cases opening up state monopolies to competiton to the benefit of the consumer.Replacing state monopolies with private ones isn't good and selling off the nation's assets isn't either.

Not exactly a wild free-for-all.

Very selective list that teamhurtmore. Seems a lot like you've included all the pro's but none of the con's. Things like the demutualisation of the building societies, the removal of controls on credit and so forth and so on to name but two.

Where did the £22billion go Labour?

Restoring the shambles left by the previous 18 years at a rough guess, pretty much like will happen post this bunch when they go. Simple current example: Lack of proper road maintainence, the road network is in the process of falling apart. It is blatantly obvious that the current lack of proper maintainence is going to lead to massive future costs.

Nothing more to say currently, as I'm steadfastly maintaining my dignified leftist stance to the old bats passing.

Except that the current 'lot' are dealing with labours malcompetence.

Except that the current 'lot' are dealing with labours malcompetence.

At what point does the current government have to start taking some responsibility for our current predicament? Never according to some people.

They're not 'dealing' with anything other than their own self-serving ideologically driven political agenda.

You may not have noticed (unbelievable, I know) but their policies are having the exact opposite effect of their stated aim. The deficit is going UP!!

It is odd with politicians.

They can point to every single minute flaw in their predecssers policies but absolutley none of the ones in the policies they bring in to replace them.

Well done Grum- I said by the time they are in their SECOND term

Berm Bandit - Member
Not exactly a wild free-for-all.
Very selective list that teamhurtmore.

Very true BB and wasn't meant to be otherwise. Merely pointing out that the changes in the city in the early 1980s were not quite as they seemed. I didn't mean to make that a pro v con list - rather that changes also included important regulation and re-regulation. The rapid rise in Fin Services pre and post dated Thatcher but she is often portrayed as being the woman who created a free-for-all. As i have said before, she must have had mystical powers if that were true.

Chart 1 on page 14 of this gives a useful perspective of the dramatic rise in FS in the UK

Well done Grum- I said by the time they are in their SECOND term

Where did you say that? About who? What [i]are[/i] you talking about? MATRON!!

I'll say one thing for you lefties (and plastic-communists like binners), you have staying power (well not in politics but hey).

Are you all related to TJ? 😆

Hora. You're blathering again.....

[img] [/img]

You are the living embodiment of the experiment involving limitless monkies with keyboards. I'm convinced of it

binners - Member
They're not 'dealing' with anything other than their own self-serving ideologically driven political agenda.

So what part of [i]any[/i] political "agenda" does dealing with large and unsustainable levels of debt belong to?
Add a broken banking system on top and starts to make life difficult for anyone in charge.

They are making mistakes for sure, but like most parties of all persuasions in large parts of the developed world, their hands are firmly constrained by the legacy of the past. Hence, I fail to see how you can make these easy distinctions between its the Tories' fault or Labour's fault. Its all inter-twined. Just look at what Hollande is saying then doing in France.

yes the deficit that is SO important to their 'virility' has risen, but there is a huge bubble going to burst --money printing or the polite term to fool people --QEasing -- is the throw of last resort--US, UK and now Japan are engaged in this deperate attempt to defy the 'markets' --the shrewdies in US are dumping all their stock in the consumer economy--preparing for the worst-- inflation will soon take off, housing market will collapse and the rest of you can join those of us who have nothing--- fun times for all.....

I agree with you THM. As you clearly know a thing or two about economics, what do you think the long term results will be be of the present economic policy*? Where do you see it leaving us in 10 years, say?

Do you think this is a permanent adjustment to a low skill, low wage economy, now in terminal decline? And that we're just going to have to accept ever falling living standards? And this is what Thatcher referred in Liverpool - 'managed decline'

* The term 'policy' is used figuratively in this instance

Rudebwoy - you should add that QE is also hidden theft. At least in Cyprus, you can see what you are dealing with. But when governments distort interest rates, repress savers etc, they are guilty of being deliberately dishonest!

[The shrewdies may not be shrewd if the US markets continue to hit highs. They may be right in the LT, but in the short term they need to remain solvent!]

Rudebwoy,
Here are some simple undisputable facts for you;

Coal production was in decline.
Pits were being closed down.
Miners went on strike.

All before Thatcher. 💡

You may also want to take note of the amount of support that Scargill has been shown on these pages, which appear to be mainly inhabited by those of a left wing persuasion.
Clue: it's not a lot.

thm-- you should know that the market goes to the top before its collapse--knowing when to get out is the shrewdies mark-- Buffet and his gang are doing that now-- you cannot have a disparity that the us economy has become, going in that direction forever-- its fairly obvious to me--and i'm an unemployed joiner who takes an interest in the world-- tis the history of capitalism -- oh and yes the dipping into peoples bank accounts is crude but honest--the methods used here are much more subtle and dip into certain sections of society but not the Rich-- oh and they convince simple minded people that we are all in the same boat, and there is no alternative-- tragic...

rudebwoy - Member

i'm an unemployed joiner

Lots of work for skilled joiners in my area (Cambs). 🙂

good for you--long way from my yard--

I'll have a spare room in my house from mid May. 😀

Except that the current 'lot' are dealing with labours malcompetence.

With the modest exception that the current scenario has much to do with a global economic problem, which if I'm not much mistaken has in turn much to do with the shennigans perpertrated by the financial institutions of the entire world, but largely preciptiated by the actions of one M. Thatcher and one R.Reagan in the 1980's.

You can of course argue about the need for prudence in preparation for said event, but before that can any of us here smugly own up to having made a fortune from correctly prediciting the crash of 2008? In which case I will of course acknowledge that it was utterly obvious to all.

but before that can any of us here can smugly own up to having made a fortune from correctly prediciting the crash of 2008?

I predicted it in 1997. 😉

😆

fortune? do tell sbob

largely preciptiated by the actions of one M. Thatcher and one R.Reagan in the 1980's

really?

Binners, in short, I do not accept the fatalist arguments that we are necessarily in long term decline, nor that we will be a low wage/low skilled economy. But the prospects for the low skilled in the UK and the rest of the developed world are genuinely frightening (hence my personal interest in education). There was an interesting article in the FT a few days ago ( http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d69ec792-9e08-11e2-9ccc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2QFuMj3Zz) which shifts the inequality argument from the UK-centric one, to a global one which says that global inequality is reducing in a positive manner (across nations if not within them). But this has inevitably negative consequences for the low skilled in developed nations such as the UK. There is no doubt IMO that the UK and other developed economies will grow much slower than other parts of the world. If you lack skills in this environment, you will face a very bleak future indeed. And frankly Mrs T was correct in her widely misquoted, "there is not such thing as society speech." Her real message - that it is foolish to expect governments to supply the answers - is probably more relevant today than it was at the time. I fear that those who expect governments of any party to look after them in old age will be bitterly disappointed.

Again IMO there are three key obstacles to growth - excess levels of debt (household, banks, governments), a broken € zone and the lack of corporate confidence. Corporate UK has a lot of cash ready to invest but they lack the confidence to go ahead and put it to work. Dealing with the first two will take many years - which plays into Labour's hands since there will be no dramatic return to growth in the UK. Their risks are welfare, where rightly or wrongly, they are losing the battle in the media and in the minds of the public. But the "joker" is factor three. If corporate UK gains confidence then investment "could" well accelerate faster than people think. There is a hidden element of this in current labour statistics where the private sector is showing signs of recovery. Personally, I think it will take really positive news from Europe for this to happen fully and I cant see that in the short term. But that is Cameron's wild card and Labour would be foolish to ignore it IMO. Maybe that is what triggered Blair to write his article in the New Statesman?

[quote=Berm Bandit said]
You can of course argue about the need for prudence in preparation for said event,

I guess GB really believed he'd got rid of boom and bust. Ooops!

You can of course argue about the need for prudence in preparation for said event, but before that can any of us here smugly own up to having made a fortune from correctly prediciting the crash of 2008? In which case I will of course acknowledge that it was utterly obvious to all.

Well, not a fortune as that would have required one to start with. But I predicted its inevitability from 2003 and acted in summer 2007 to protect what I had. No inside knowledge, just an accountant who took an interest in the data available.

Those in government and opposition with greater resources behind them should have made better decisions.

I made nothing, but was predicting it from 2004. I worked in the construction industry and decided to change jobs to try and get into a more secure career.

Also saw it about 3 months before the big crash as was trying to re jig a couple of credit cards to a loan and I was finding it impossible to get a load, which 3 years earlier I could get 5 loads a day for a month. It's was madness I back in 2001-2006

Berm Bandit - Member

fortune? do tell sbob

No, I didn't make any money out of it, I'm quite poor. 😀

[i]Runs through the thread naked swinging tally-whacker like a elephants trunk[/i]

I fear that those who expect governments of any party to look after them in old age will be bitterly disappointed

Does that include public sector pensions?

Should I bail out now?

I thought the prioperty market was going to crash in 2005 so sold my house and rented. What an idiot I was until 2008.

You may not have noticed (unbelievable, I know) but their policies are having the exact opposite effect of their stated aim. The deficit is going UP!!

yes the deficit that is SO important to their 'virility' has risen

Where do you get your figures from?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data

thm, the US economy is still the world's largest and most influental, a chill there, and the rest of the world catches a cold-- individual govt have no power to prevent such, all they can do is make the best of a bad job and spread the pain or gain in an equitable manner--ideally of course.

Since we do not live in such a place, things will be a lot different depending on which strata of society you inhabit....

to attempt to portray the Arthur Scargill as some sort of equivalent to Thatcher shows how bankrupt your thinking and ideology must be.

Well to be fair, she expected the whole country to pay to keep her when she was no longer doing anything useful, Arthur only expected the 2000 or so miners left to pay to support him.

dangerousbeans - Member
I fear that those who expect governments of any party to look after them in old age will be bitterly disappointed
Does that include public sector pensions?

For sure and the appropriate advice should be given now to all members of such schemes. There are NHS staff that are told that since the pension fund is currently self funded that this means that it is sustainable. They, in particular, need to be properly advised IMO.

But if governments are going to continue to (indirectly) rob us of the correct returns on our savings then knowing where best to invest your money is another challenge completely. But at least the last few years have quashed one idea on its head - the risk-free return!

I love the way the hills of dorset warp news as its gently rolls over the fields... a short poem by my local barman and poet.

“Thatcher Dead” they said
Someone’s fallen off a roof
I thought to myself

by elvis mcgonagall, april 2013

brakes - Member
largely preciptiated by the actions of one M. Thatcher and one R.Reagan in the 1980's
really?

allthepies - Member
Berm Bandit said »
You can of course argue about the need for prudence in preparation for said event,
I guess GB really believed he'd got rid of boom and bust. Ooops!

sbob - Member
Berm Bandit - Member
fortune? do tell sbob
No, I didn't make any money out of it, I'm quite poor
🙂

Berm Bandit - Member

Thought not. I did have you down as a post event smarty pants, so it appears that I'm not going to be disappointed.

So what should I have done?
Seeing as you are so obviously aware of all my circumstances over the last 16 years. ❓

So what should I have done?

Hey you're the guy who knows things in advance, you figure it out.

Berm Bandit - Member

Hey you're the guy who knows things in advance, you figure it out.

I don't know everything in advance, I just predicted, along with everyone else I know who either can remember or has learned what Labour governments are like, that the economy would be up the Gary under Labour.

It's not like knowing the lottery numbers, is it Einstein?
🙂

Meanwhile...Radio 1 are to play only a clip of Ding-Dong - contained in a news item - in the chart show.

Proof that if you sit on the fence you get splinters up your chuff.

They said that it was in case it upset family members. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I doubt Sir Mark Thatcher listens to Radio 1

binners - Member

They said that it was in case it upset family members. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I doubt [b]Sir[/b] Mark Thatcher listens to Radio 1

I don't know everything in advance, I just predicted, along with everyone else I know who either can remember or has learned what Labour governments are like, that the economy would be up the Gary under Labour.

It's not like knowing the lottery numbers, is it Einstein?

binners - Member
They said that it was in case it upset family members. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I doubt Sir Mark Thatcher listens to Radio 1

you have no, abso$%^*kinglutely no idea how ****ing offensive I find that.

Do tell us. Is it a lot or a little?

BigButSlimmerBloke - Member

no, bit like we're gonna have a tory government, i predict tax cuts for the wealthy, benefit cuts for the poor and the economy being worse than it was before.

Did you actually predict that in 1979 then?

I love the way the hills of dorset warp news as its gently rolls over the fields... this is from Elvis, he will be at the SSUK party.

“Thatcher Dead” they said
Someone’s fallen off a roof
I thought to myself

by elvis mcgonagall, april 2013

[quote=Berm Bandit said]
I think you may be mistaking me for someone who thinks GB is some form of hero

It was a comment on GB's management of the economy, please don't flatter yourself 🙂

It was a comment on GB's management of the economy, please don't flatter yourself

It's not like knowing the lottery numbers, is it Einstein?