It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Margeret Thatcher - The worst UK Prime Minister ever

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   
As I can talk about whatever I want to do with UK politics on this forum, I am going to turn to one of my favourite past times... THATCHER BASHING!

I would consider MT the WORST Prime Minister ever to run our country for many reasons... The main of which are listed below:

Privitisation of just about everything - Marge privitised the railways, water, electricity, gas... amoungst many many MANY things, leavign the common worker to scramble in the gutter for enough money to afford all of these fundemental thigns... Things that ABSURDLY were (and sadly continue too) be run by private companies. Where is the logic in that? It benefits those who can affrod it only, and the rich fatcats getting plump of the workers struggles and efforts. Adn what happens if the company goes bust? Thats right, more strain on the workers pockets...

Boom and Bust - Thanks to Marges GREAT economic plans, we experienced several slumps in our economy... she traded economic stability and gentle growth (as we have today) for huge failures adn then huge successes... although, only for the pockets of the rich...

Opposition to minimum wage - Thats right.. she'd have the common man crawling on all fours like a beast... Minimum wage... according to her and the Shadow chancellor, the current Conservative batty, Michael Howard, a minimum wage would casue "mass economic stability". Bollox. God forbid we shoudl be paid a decent wage, rather than allowing our bosses to exploit us...

Opposition to the miners and the closure of the mines - coal.. what will be in the future the most important resource we will have... she shut the mines down... she shut OUR MINES DOWN, AND PUT THOUSANDS INTO POVERTY. And yet the workers are the savages! The law breakers! The crooks! FOR SHAME MRS THATCHER! You should have died in that IRA bomb blast says I... (I do not condon the use of violence on any one... excpet Thatcher.)

The Poll Tax (My favourite) - Marge belived in lower taxation, and a free market... yet the taxation was not only just as bad as i had been in previous years, she made lower income families pay the same as millionaires! WE MUST NEVER ALLOW THE WORKER TO BECOME EXPLOITED IN SUCH A WAY AGAIN.

Anythign else? Anyone wanna add, or argue, or indulge or whatever? I'm sure I've forgotten stuff too.




posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I rather liked Ms. Thatcher. The woman had balls which is more than I can say for a lot of men in politics these days. She did a pretty good job and kept up with the boys club of the world. Are you sure it just wasn't her looks that bothered you......I mean, she was a little homely.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Normally I wouldn't discuss UK politics with a Brit, since I'm pretty ignorant of them, but that doesn't stop most of the Brits who are ignorant of American politics from discussing them, so what the hey.

I (and probably 8 out of 10 Americans who actually know a bit about UK history) would classify Margaret Thatcher as the top of the second tier PMs -- above Harold Macmillan, to be sure. The Great Four, of course, were William Pitt (obviously, from an American perspective) Disraeli, Gladstone, and Churchill; the bottom feeders were people like Lord North and Neville Chamberlain; and I would consider Thatcher right below them -- possibly the fifth or sixth greatest PM that the UK ever had.

And the reason for this, of course, is that she tried so hard to liberate Great Britian from what your countryman Orwell called "Ingsoc"; a philosophy I can see that you are in favor of.

But then again, you are a Brit; your ideas of freedom, economy, right, wrong, etc. probably differ substantially from mine.

Perhaps you could give me a rationale of how Thatcher is worse than Lord North.

Edited to say:

I see by your profile that you're seventeen years old; therefore, you were only two or three when she left office. How are you able to evaluate her performance if you have no first hand knowledge of it?

[edit on 17-6-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Normally I wouldn't discuss UK politics with a Brit, since I'm pretty ignorant of them, but that doesn't stop most of the Brits who are ignorant of American politics from discussing them, so what the hey.

I (and probably 8 out of 10 Americans who actually know a bit about UK history) would classify Margaret Thatcher as the top of the second tier PMs -- above Harold Macmillan, to be sure. The Great Four, of course, were William Pitt (obviously, from an American perspective) Disraeli, Gladstone, and Churchill; the bottom feeders were people like Lord North and Neville Chamberlain; and I would consider Thatcher right below them -- possibly the fifth or sixth greatest PM that the UK ever had.

And the reason for this, of course, is that she tried so hard to liberate Great Britian from what your countryman Orwell called "Ingsoc"; a philosophy I can see that you are in favor of.

But then again, you are a Brit; your ideas of freedom, economy, right, wrong, etc. probably differ substantially from mine.

Perhaps you could give me a rationale of how Thatcher is worse than Lord North.

Edited to say:

I see by your profile that you're seventeen years old; therefore, you were only two or three when she left office. How are you able to evaluate her performance if you have no first hand knowledge of it?

[edit on 17-6-2005 by Off_The_Street]


Firstly, I'm 18 years old, and asnwering that last question, Britain is still recovering from Margert Thatchers failures and economic hiccups today, so its still effects me. AS well as that, I'm always beign informed from different factions about her doings and plus I know from study. Due to her mass privitisation (favoured by the USA) the poorer income families of our country find they struggle more when it comes to fundemental utilities (water, gas etc), and so becasue of this unjust, unfair system, poorer families find it harder to cope.

Clement Atlee is the best Prime Minister the UK has ever had in my eyes. He introduced the NHS, nationalised education fully, gas, water, electricity, the trains. Allowing Brittain many years after the war of strong stability and growth, as well as equality for everyone, rather than the rich. Thatcher changed all that, insiting a strong compertition rather than co-operation feel to our country, distroying any community feeling and pride. "Every man for himself". That is what her reign in power has drilled into our minds, and remains today.

As for our differences in political opinion; your no doubt right-wing americanist ideal, and my welfare, social equality ideals will differ indeed. How you can support a coutnry where the rich poor divide is an issue compared to many more left countries, I do not know. Your constitution and "American is no 1" attitdue, infecting u from birth, has destroyed logic in most Amercians midns. The USA is the most successful country in the world economically, but onyl becasue money and power come before people and community. The American dream, "the self made man" is the basis for your business, as well as your morals. That idctates to your countrymen that the workfroce is not important, and that is why u have few unions. Your country is the epitome of what i despise; a far-right, capitalist hypocrisy. You stand for freedom; freedom of choice, speech and view (unless your a communist or left wing), and freedom to start your own business. However, when it comes to freedom to resist, and strike against a company for unfair wages, ooo no, thats not alowd. that "unpatriotic". The US and Thatcher hated the unions, but the unions are the voice of the people, and the people come first; not some greedy fatcat bosses.

Just quickly before my bladder explodes, i'd like to add how hypocrital the USA obsession with democracy. If you are sooo democratic, how come your country is run by businessmen, rather than elected leaders? Example; Clinton tried to introduce a form of NHS system when he was in power. It was rejected, becasue BIG business didnt allow it. Business hold all the power, becasue they own every section of the countries utilities, rendering your democratic government useless in many areas.

The USA sickens me. And Thatcher was tryign to turn the UK into another USA. Thank God she was stopped.

[edit on 17/6/05 by John Pearce]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I didn't want to post a reply on this thread as I still don't fully understand the Thatcher years, what really went on and the issues at the time. Also we can judge now from hindsight but are looking back on the past and back then they were looking to deal with current problems.

But basically this thread is a:

Left vs Right


Socialism vs Conversatism


British Political Style vs American Political Style



I'm against mass nationalisation but I'm also against mass privatisation, Thatcher from what I know did much wrong but she also did much right.

A question to the thread starter, Do you admit she did some good?



[edit on 17-6-2005 by UK Wizard]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Margaret Thatcher was a brilliant PM and set Britain on a track for success into the 21st century! Why do you think the economy of Britain is quite good while that of France and Germany is in the toilet? The answer: Thatcher!



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Damn females with their female problems. Like infections, or other things, how dare they want to be more then baby makers in the kitchen?

Anyways, enough with the republican bs, lets go to the real world.

Thatcher had more balls then Tony, Bush, and Cheney. She has more then Ann Coulter, Janet Reno, and Hillary CLinton, and we all know the size they have, hell, they won't wear mini skirts cause then you see their kahones hanging out.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Wizard is probably right, this could easily become a stale old left - right row so I'll try and be a little more original in my reply.

Thatcher wasn't quite as history has protrayed.
(That applies, IMO, to the 'left' and 'right's' perspective.)

'Thatcherism' wasn't even her idea.
Originally it was people like Keith Joseph, Airey Neive and Geoffrey Howe that 'invented' Thatcherism in the late 1960's. She became the front for this 'radical conservative' approach.

The key for this approach was to tackle the 'power' of organised labour (small 'L') in the UK.
Hence the sustained attack on the trade unions.

I was 16 when Thatcher came to power in 1979 and 27 when she left in 1990. I remember it well.

For those who think she set the UK on the road to 'success' I won't disagree entirely but I don't think it was all her doing either and I am convinced that on balance she probably did far more harm than good.

I see it as a balance.
It had probably gone too far in one direction when the tory party were first elected in 1979 but by the time she left office (and certainly after Major took over the conservative gov) it had gone too far in the other.
From an unhealthy dominance of organised labour to an unhealthy dominance of 'ownership' and management.
Too far in either direction ultimately becomes self-defeating.....as the tory party have found out to their cost.
They can thank Thatcher for laying the foundations of their being out of power for 2 generations +.

One trouble with it all was that a callous disregard for the effects of policy characterised what was happening.
'If it isn't hurting it isn't working' and 'Je ne regret rien' (whilst unemployment was in the 10%, 3million+ range) was the kind of crass tory mentality people would not forget in a hurry.
Right-wing macho nutcases were pretty rife talking as if the entire country could just "get on their bikes" and instantly become 'loadsamoney's'; 'hooray-Henry's' or 'yuppies' in London 'in the city' (financial markets) just because some did so.

It was a great time to be well off or part of a new industry or be able to afford to make a quick buck in shares (especially the knock-down price ex-nationalised industry ones.....which we, the public, were supposed to own already anyway), tough luck if you were in an 'old industry, 'ordinary' or less well off.
We saw a level of division and a growing disparity thanks to her policies......policies which right from the start very deliberately destroyed jobs and livings to 'cow' the workforce and subdue the trades unions.

(Until even Thatcher was persuaded that Milton Friedmans' 'monetarism' was never going to deliver what it promised and 'work'; the over-valued £ - kept artificially high by high interest rates - was simply destroying the UK's manufacturing base.
They let it destroy around 20% before they changed course though.
Even the Luftwaffe didn't manage that in 1940/41.)

I was pretty sure it had all finally collapsed in the UK the day I saw miners being cheered on by the well healed middle and upper classes in places like Knightsbridge and Chelsea during the final ghastly fag-end of Majors time.
Unbelievable but true.

It finally dawned on people that whilst they might not have had much of a liking for Arthur Scargill & Co. the truth was that the future Scargill had warned of was actually, contrary to the official line, a gross under-estimate of the devastation these people had planned for an entire industry and several regions of the country.

In the begining it had seemed ok to the middleclasses to be indifferent to the catastrophe happening to the working classes; afterall 'they' were, apparantly, long over due a 'shake-up' what with their 'spainish practises' etc etc, or so the propaganda of the time would have had us all believe.

(The shameless wrapping themselves in the flag post-Falklands and the implication that anyone not tory was a traitor was incredible - but, true to form, something they did to embarrassing death in the end.
Michael Portillo's ridiculous 'don't mess' 1995 'SAS speech' at tory party conference was just typical of how detached and drunk with power they had become and how some of them thought they were to be the UK gov from now until the end of time!)

When the final effects of that 'ideology' were seen finally to come back and bite the middleclasses themselves (with the tragedy of the 1st terrible recession not actually 'solving' anything, the UK not over-taking the German economy afterall and a terrible 2nd recession not confined to the working class but the middle classes with record home repossessions etc) they learned to despise the Brtish conservative party and have felt disgust for them pretty much ever since.

Witness the last general election. A 0.5 - 0.6% increase in their vote has them going nowhere.

In large past thanks to Mrs T and the version of conservatism she established.
Some tories are (still) so unrealistic as to imagine it is all nothing to do with her and have lost all memory of why it was her own that ditched her so ruthlessly. Some seriously imagined a returning 'Queen across the water' for long into the 1990's; something else that did little to help Major's torrid time as PM.

I suppose politics is about myth as much as fact to some degree anyway and no doubt Tony Blair will have a huge raft of myth created about him when he departs too.
Especially as he will probably leave when he has beaten Thatcher's modern record as PM for 11yrs 209 days.
The longest serving PM in modern times (for 160yrs I believe) will be a Labour PM, had the tories not blown it so disasterously it would have been the tory Mrs T; politicians 'go' for that kind of thing.

Still, the social division she helped create and foster along with the nurturing of a quasi-US culture here will be with us some time yet.
(The irony; a 'conservative' who actually did more to 'Americanise' and turn Britain upside down than most, some conservatism. No wonder America and particularly the American right-wing likes her so much.
)
Sadly her loopy ideas about Europe still hold sway for so many too.
Likewise the entire 'the rich can get away with paying nothing towards the society they live in if they have even a barely competent accountant' ethos......which has served to breed a culture of everyone wanting to avoid all taxes, yet reap the benefits of a civillised cohesive society.

Lastly there was the embarrassing build-up to her ejection by her own party.
She always was a fine example of that wierd petty bourgeois, lower middleclass, chip on her shoulder, vicious and ruthlessly streaked, oddball (sexless? .....ok some found her sexy but mostly the unusual upperclass dominatrix/nanny/mother lovers, surely?) Brit but her "We are a grandmother" was the classic line that announced to the entire world that she had publicly, finally and very definitely lost it.

The one thing I would say unreservedly on the 'plus' side of the balance is (like Reagan) that she recognised the new possibilities first and constructively helped ease relations (after a hard-line start) between east and west.
She was the first to publicly say positive things about Gorbachev and helped convince Reagan Gorbachev was a genuine man 'the west could do business with'.

(Pity the west's ultimate response - thanks to our then mania for right-wing economics - was really neither one thing nor the other and helped give rise to the Russian mafia, but that's another story.)

........and for those convinced that there has been a load of dodgy goings on over Iraq and what Tony Blair agreed to go along with and when I would suggest a little thought about the 'Falklands war'.

Very handy timing that, hmmmmm?

Thatcher was all set to be out on her ear in the general election due in '83 or '84 as the tories were polling (then) record lows in the 20% range.

It has often puzzled me how come the removal of the patrol ship HMS Endurance (the act that triggered the war) has not featured in any serious consideration.
Argentinians themselves (in their memoirs) state that it was this move that triggered their actions.
But most seriously of all the matter had been considered by the British gov in the mid 1970's (only a couple of years before, then) and the then gov decided not to withdraw the ship exactly because they believed such a move would encourage an armed Argentine response regarding the islands.

Over 200 British servicement died in that action which it seems Thatcher is to be regarded as a heroine for when I am far from convinced it was anything other than a cynical exploitation of the predictable response of a failing military junta and it's very 2nd division armed forces (handful of exocets or no).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for Neville Chamberlain being one of our "worst ever" I think this is way too simplistic and harsh a judgement.
I suggest that those who did not live through the horrors of WW1 can have little clue.

The fact that many saw the post WW1 German complaints and demands as reasonable (certainly to begin with.......imagine if the USA had been forced to give up territory etc etc) is part of it but the deep desire to never repeat the catastrphic experience along with the genuine difficulty to believe Hitler & Co. really were what they were and would risk it all again is IMO perfectly understandable and far from the traditional 'image' of NC.

NC's problem was to live to face a Hitler; until then he had been a very able and popular Prime Minister.
Then again I doubt many would have fared better. Churchill was a great war time leader (his 'blessing' from 'time') but had he come along pre-war he would just as likely have been a big disaster in domestic politics (as he had been before) and not gotten the country ready as NC and others did, just in time.

As for Europe?
The fact that Germany (the 'engine economy' of Europe and the EU) has been absorbing the old East German state is the reason for Europe's current torpor; it has absolutely nothing to do with a so-called 'socialist' approach (and as the state share of the German and French economy has fallen in the last decade how on earth can anyone claim the contrary?).

Lastly Lord North.
Clearly a man who made some disasterous mistakes (and who the King held onto to take the blame once the possible scale of disaster became known).

But the 'problems' in the American colonies was probably unavoidable whoever was in charge; granted they could have been handled better but nevertheless no matter how you try to dress it up and pretend it is something else you can't really stand in the way of a genuine mass movement for independance (as the Americans themselves were to forget to their cost many years later in SE Asia).

Anyhoo domestically North had the Gordon riots.

Thatcher had several outbreaks of rioting across the country too.

We had inner city riots in the early 1980s in Liverpool, London, Bristol, Birmingham, Luton, Reading, Hull, Preston etc etc.

We had the riots during the Miners strike across the country (and accompanying curtailing of our rights to free travel thanks to the Police stopping people on mere suspicion as they moved around the country).

We had riots at the US cruise missile bases.

We also had riots during the Poll Tax fiasco, mainly in London but which, even so, provoked the biggest mass civil disobedience (through non-payment) the UK has seen in centuries.


Originally posted by Off-the-Street
Normally I wouldn't discuss UK politics with a Brit, since I'm pretty ignorant of them, but that doesn't stop most of the Brits who are ignorant of American politics from discussing them, so what the hey.


- I don't get that idea at all.

Surely the idea is to exchange views here.
Since when has that precluded those not living in a particular place giving a view on it?

Surely the only point might be that one makes it known where one is from so that there is no pretence going on.

I'm interested in the international view of my country; IMO it would be a disaster for these boards if only people from the US ever talked about the US and ditto Europe and the UK.

That is surely against the whole point of this place?

Phew!
Full enough answer for you's?

[edit on 17-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:12 PM
link   

The USA sickens me… how hypocrital [sic] the USA obsession…"American is no 1" attitude [sic], infecting u from birth,... thats [sic] not alowd [soc]. that "unpatriotic".


My, my, my. What an interesting way to engage in civil discussion with other people on a board set up to do just that. But I suppose it’s not surprising, given that you’ve never held a job in your life, can’t even spell you own country’s name correctly (“Allowing Brittain many…) and have a grand total of four days on this board.

Here’s a suggestion. Let’s shelve the conversation, and pick it up again when you grow up and become a bit less shrill (assuming any of us are still alive then).



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Sminkeypinkey, sometimes it is a pleasure to cross swords with you. I may disagree ("MAY"? How about "ALMOST ALWAYS DO") with your politics, but you certainly have your courtesy and coherence (and access to a spell-checker, thank God) together.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Edit: better not..

Comment again when I'm sober.


[edit on 17-6-2005 by kegs]



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
My, my, my. What an interesting way to engage in civil discussion with other people on a board set up to do just that. But I suppose it’s not surprising, given that you’ve never held a job in your life, can’t even spell you own country’s name correctly (“Allowing Brittain many…) and have a grand total of four days on this board.


Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that all people in full time work think the basic American system is wonderful. How silly of me to think that maybe we don't all agree with the American style of government? God forbid that I should express how much I disagree with the USA, and then back it up with evidence! Who would have thought I could have been so ridiculous as to exploit my right to freedom of speech? I'll remember in future to remind everyone who is not in employment to shut up and not to express themselves...

As for my spelling, I apologise, and don't mean to mis spell words. I didn't realise what a big issue the odd misplacement of a letter was on here? Maybe the odd spelling mistake means i'm an illiterate teenage hooligian too?

And as for my time on this board, I fail to see how the amount of time I have been on here reflects my opinions? Or maybe you couldn't think of anythign else could insult me with, so why not throw that in too?


Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Here’s a suggestion. Let’s shelve the conversation, and pick it up again when you grow up and become a bit less shrill (assuming any of us are still alive then).


Sorry grandad, I didn't realise that the expression of oneself is not allowed to include the odd "!", even when I mean to emphasise a point as clearly as possible. And if you read the conversation, (that is if your old eyes are still able too), you might just see past the bold statements I have made and see why I have said them too? Ok?

I CONCLUSION; I don't agree with the USA moral priority of money and power first, people second. And I don't see how a country can go on about democracy when they are controlled by multinational companies themselves.

[edit on 18/6/05 by John Pearce]



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Firstly age has nothing to do with anyones ability or opinions nor does time on this forum matter. I'm sure Simon himself has said that terms like newbie or anything related to it or intending to claim such things are not allowed on here. So the fact you've spent longer on this board shows your "lack" of knowledge of the forum rules. Does it not?

Now back to the Point and the Topic:

I myself have mixed feelings on Maggy T.

What she did for Britain in reflection to the European Union and the Falklands war I very much respect her for as well as her "hard line" stance on the U.S.S.R. but for me that is where it stops.

Maggy T and her Government have helped to cause a lot of problems within the National Health Service and the Education Sector. For example; under her Government several agencies got contracts that were set up to last 20+ years which only damaged these areas.

For Example: Under her Government they privitized the cleaning of the NHS. So now instead of cleaners being paid say £6.50 per-hour they have to pay that + another amount on top to the company for giving them their cleaners. This only helps to take money out of the NHS which could have been spent better elsewhere. The same goes for School dinners, etc, etc.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I personally think Baroness Thatcher did a very good job for the country. She turned around our ailing economy, faced up to brussels and made us what we are today.

She did make some bad decisions, as do all leaders at some point in their careers but on the whole her scorecard is pretty positive. Most of the crap the Tories did was after her reign.

My own view is that the degradation of society into a 'greed is good' culture (which is often attributed to her) cannot be attributed solely to Baroness Thatcher but more to the free-market system she helped introduce. The capitalist culture of every man for himself and the rise of materialism as a means of self-definition and as a tool of self-worth shoulder much more of the blame.


Maggy T and her Government have helped to cause a lot of problems within the National Health Service and the Education Sector. For example; under her Government several agencies got contracts that were set up to last 20+ years which only damaged these areas


The education sector was damaged by the abolition of the grammar schools and a general lack of respect for teachers. I agree on the NHS thing, I think all of the functions should be kept in-house (as should school dinners).

As to the anti-american aspect, it really doesn't belong here. There are umpteen threads on these boards dedicated to bashing our cousins from across the pond, go post that garbage in one of them.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Sminkeypinkey, sometimes it is a pleasure to cross swords with you.


- 'tips hat'.....and to you too OTS.


I may disagree ("MAY"? How about "ALMOST ALWAYS DO") with your politics


- You've got to admit it'd be a really really boring world if we all thought the same thing, eh?

At least we just chew it over with dialogue, huh?


but you certainly have your courtesy and coherence (and access to a spell-checker, thank God) together.


- I thank you.

Always a pleasure.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Was MT the worst PM ever?

Simple answer to your question....NO!




posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   
1. She took over a country where the IMF had been called in
2. She abolished 92% (or was it 98%) taxes on un earned incomes (like rent). All this had done was to cause foreign investors to leave, and wealthy people turn lazy (sort of like a Communist Country).
3. She destroyed the undemocratically elected unions (unless you count joining and paying a fee as democracy). These people held the country to ransom causing power cuts, rubbish not to be collected for months and much, much more. It was they who made British industry uncompetitive and thereby destroyed it.
4. At its height the government spent (in subsidy) £350,000 for every member of British Steel. Yet (even if you include the directors) the average wage was less than £20,000. Why couldn’t the government have just given them the money on a plate and told them to retire?
What’s left of British Steel usually runs at a profit and pays taxes.
5. She privatised loss making British Airways (one of Britain’s most valuable companies).
6. She privatised BT and the loss making telephone network (Now one of Britain’s biggest profit producers).
7. She reduced total tax per person to around 40% of total income (taxes are higher under Labour than Thatcher and have never gone down).
8. She secured the British rebate

Governments make laws, raise taxes, and right checks. They do not run enterprise because if they do it all goes wrong. Ether because they understand spin (not economics) or because they put their mates in charge because they are their...er..mates.
Mrs Thatcher realised this and took the political risks to address it.

Note: It was "mad" Major who went too far and did the railways. Never privatise something unless it can make a profit. Otherwise safety will be compromised. But unlike her successor Maggie knew that or I bet you she would have done it.
Yours Alex



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984

1. She took over a country where the IMF had been called in


- Did you know that (now the correct and full data is available, which it wasn't back then) this was unnecessary?

In any event so what? What is the point of being a member of an organisation if you are intent on never making use of it's assistance when you think you might need it?


2. She abolished 92% (or was it 98%) taxes on un earned incomes (like rent). All this had done was to cause foreign investors to leave, and wealthy people turn lazy (sort of like a Communist Country).


- No, this is not so.
Actually the top rate of tax was 83% in 1979 (and even then it was not at that rate on all income only income above a certain level).


3. She destroyed the undemocratically elected unions (unless you count joining and paying a fee as democracy). These people held the country to ransom causing power cuts, rubbish not to be collected for months and much, much more. It was they who made British industry uncompetitive and thereby destroyed it.


- To claim 'it was all the unions' fault' (as many tories still do) is IMO short-sighted in the extreme.
The fact remains that management in many instances were just as much to blame.


4. At its height the government spent (in subsidy) £350,000 for every member of British Steel. Yet (even if you include the directors) the average wage was less than £20,000. Why couldn’t the government have just given them the money on a plate and told them to retire?
What’s left of British Steel usually runs at a profit and pays taxes.


- Maybe it would have been far more productive if they had done, of course they did nothing like that.
Subsidy might be perverse at times but no country is going to do without certain strategic industries.


5. She privatised loss making British Airways (one of Britain’s most valuable companies).


- So?
It wasn't a state run business just for fun, was it?


6. She privatised BT and the loss making telephone network (Now one of Britain’s biggest profit producers).


- .......and what? We have gone from inefficient public monopoly to an inefficient private (effective) monopoly.
Comparing BT prices and service with some of the still public sector communications companies in Europe gives the lie to the idea that privatisation 'worked wonders'.


7. She reduced total tax per person to around 40% of total income (taxes are higher under Labour than Thatcher and have never gone down).


- Let's see you prove this because my information is that taxation rates for the vast bulk of taxpayers are not higher under Labour when compared to Thatcher's time, actually.

They are slightly higher for those in the top bracket compared to the brief low-point they reached momentarily under Major, that is all.


8. She secured the British rebate


- She did, well done.
Makes all the enormous damage she did almost worthwhile, huh?



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I congratulate Sminkeypinkey on his post and the time he took over it. The years of Margaret Thatcher brought much trouble to living in the UK.I was at the riot in London,over the poll tax.It shouldn't have happened,but it did.

Many of our North Eastern towns,suffered bad,amongst them,Sheffield, Leeds,Sunderland.Their industry was gone so fast,it didn't seem right.That was followed by the sell off,of Sealink,BRS,BT and nearly every British asset we had.Our motorcycle industry,Triumph,BSA,couldn't survive.The arts and film industries,had financing cut.

What people did have jobs,could hardly afford to live,without Family Income Supplement.Yes,the Miners were on strike,sugar was at times hard to come by and cost of living kept increasing.

Money was being handed out to foriegn companies,to bring jobs to England,amonget them,DeLorean Cars,Skoal Bandits and many Japanese companies.Basically,England lost,more than it gained.TV licences increased and so did the fines for not having one.

And yes,decisions that were made then,still affect England today.The Tory party made many screw ups,but i will be fair,in saying the alternate choices at that time,weren't much better.The Tory elect figured,really haven't increased much,since 1990.Perhaps it may be time,to look forward,instead of clinging to the old ways,because if they don't,the Brit's will never trust them again.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Thatcher set us up for the 21st century, two terms of her were probably for the best, by curtailing the power of the unions and privatising certai sectors of government she allowed England to avoid the problems France and Germany now face.

However the cost of this was staggering, she wiped out UK manufacturing, we can no longer produce any heavy engineering workds of value. Her greatest triuph was the Fauklands war, having won it she set about making sure that if it happened again we could do nothing.

Whole ways of life were wiped out in the mining towns of the North, 3 million were unemployed, causing masses of misery.

Finally her most greivous error was the misuse iof the money coming from the North Sea oil reserves, if those had been sepnt properly England would have a world class infrastructure and health service. Instead it was used to give tax breaks to the rich and support unemplyoment.




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join