Thatcher changed Britain for the worse

by Ivanhoe Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:29 pm

First topic message reminder :

Through the Thatcher Major, years, millions of British people were made poor as a matter of policy, while others got rich as a matter of policy.

Blair and Brown embraced Thatcherism due to the change in the British, and now Milliband wants to change Labour again due to a changed Britain.

I personally long for a political party that sticks to it's core values, that has conviction, that does not change itself to suit a greedy selfish uncaring British populas who'se only thought is "self". In my view this "self" is mainly among the British middle classes.

Thatcher changed Britain for the worse, and now we are reaping through this dreadful coalition, what has been sown.

by Tosh Sun Apr 14, 2013 1:17 pm

What a nerve!

Tell it to the commies, human nature seems to be a mystery to them.

by **Ivan** Sun Apr 14, 2013 1:25 pm

Tosh wrote:-
Memories are very subjective.

Very true. Which is why it would be helpful if you could provide some facts backed by sources to support all the platitudes which you inflict on us. Shocked

by Tosh Sun Apr 14, 2013 1:39 pm

Very true. Which is why it would be helpful if you could provide some facts backed by sources to support all the platitudes which you inflict on us.

I am responding to Sickchip's platitudes which contained no facts nor sources, there is no reason for me to do otherwise.

I am interested in what you consider to be a fact in politics or social studies ?

by **Ivan** Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:36 pm

BBC agrees to play short clip of controversial Thatcher ‘funeral’

"The BBC has defended its decision to broadcast a short excerpt from the controversial ‘funeral’ gathering planned to mark support for the ideology of Baroness Thatcher, who died this week apparently.

The event has been arranged by a rump of pro-Thatcher activists. They are said to have arranged a flashmob of 2,000 supporters to converge on Saint Paul’s Cathedral next week for a two hour sit-in that they are describing as ‘an extended period of mourning and remembrance’.

Numerous anarchist groups have condemned the planned gathering as a ‘sick stunt’, saying that it was arranged solely to disrupt the various far left street parties arranged for the same day. The groups have urged the BBC to ignore the protest."

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2013/04/13/bbc-agrees-to-play-short-clip-of-controversial-thatcher-funeral/

by **Ivan** Sun Apr 14, 2013 4:16 pm

YouTube

by Mel Sun Apr 14, 2013 5:05 pm

Where is the coal? Still there underground in abundance.

Where are the miners? Non existant.

Thatchers £60million ill gotten gains should be put to good use.

TOWARDS OPENING UP THE MINES!!!!!!

by **Phil Hornby** Sun Apr 14, 2013 6:05 pm

Before Thatcher spat her poison across the political scene, the Conservatives were the opponents of the other groupings. She, however, by her deliberately-cultivated divisive approach, transformed the Tories into the enemy - a very different animal...

by boatlady Sun Apr 14, 2013 6:15 pm

Neat, very neat

by Tosh Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:18 pm

TOWARDS OPENING UP THE MINES!!!!!!

Nothing stopping private investment in coal mining, roll up roll up, start a community and lose money, the shareholders will love you.

by **Ivan** Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:26 pm

Why Margaret Thatcher deserves no tribute as the woman who left Britain bitter, selfish and divided

Extracts from an article by John Prescott:-

When Thatcher’s death was announced I was bombarded with media requests to pay tribute to her. I refused. I despise everything she stood for.

Thanks to her failed economic policies, Britain went through two recessions and unemployment was deliberately allowed to skyrocket above 3 million. Under her, crime went up 79%. Her reign started with riots in Brixton and Toxteth and ended with civil disobedience and more riots against the poll tax, a regressive taxation that hit the poor the hardest.

Thatcher never had faith in society; she claimed it didn’t exist. Her belief in the individual led to selling off council homes and refusing to build new ones, leading to record waiting lists for social housing and homelessness. She also showed no faith to Nelson Mandela, whom she branded a terrorist, but called Chilean fascist dictator General Pinochet a “staunch true friend”.

She destroyed mining communities and closed pits that were still economically viable. As many as 200,000 miners lost their jobs just to show she could prove who was boss. Since then, the price of coal rose from $30 a ton in 1987 to $130 in 2008. 40% of our electricity is powered by coal, and we import the vast majority! It made no economic sense. Now the average dual-fuel bill is more than £1,400. Thatcher’s ‘shareholder democracy’ vision didn’t stop the privatised British Gas in 2012 making £606 million profits and its five bosses sharing £16.4 million in pay and bonuses.

Under Thatcher, inequality increased and the number of people in poverty rose to 12.2 million. When she was elected, one in seven children lived in poverty. By the time she was sacked, by her own cabinet, it was one in three.

For the full article:-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/john-prescott-margaret-thatcher-deserves-1829090#.UWpuZBZQMNI

by ROB Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:34 pm

Mel,

Thank you for your edifying post. Between your and SK Walker’s answers to my questions, I’m beginning to form a picture of what’s happening over there.

Where did the miners go? Over here, even among the habitually disinterested in things beyond our borders, it is pretty well-known that natural resource-poor Britain sits upon unmatched coal reserves. How and why did Thatcher torpedo this industry?

One more question. Unlike your current oligarchical-approaching-dictatorial government, Thatcher apparently headed a majority government, democratically elected within the rules of Westminster democracy in which the majority party in the House of Commons forms a government. So, as she was “elected” democratically, why was she twice-returned to office if We the People of the United Kingdom were dissatisfied by her policies and performance? Why didn’t y’all “vote the rascals out” after the first term?

by oftenwrong Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:37 pm

Although, exactly like John Prescott in one sense, Margaret Thatcher was indisputably a First Class Bar Steward.

(allowing for differences in regional accent)

by Tosh Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:18 pm

We have lots of coal and lots of water,

by Mel Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:46 pm

Thank you Rock for your kind words again.

The miners my friend were left on the scrap heap. Most lived on the dole in poverty and many died from the effects on their lungs from coal dust.
These were hard proud men, who's mining fathers before them were treated badly by their employers until late in the day the Unions protected their rights.
The Witch conived to destroy their rights by crushing the Union and closing the pits destroying swathes of mining communities.

Why? because she was hell bent on power and proving it by her actions. Yes the Unions perhaps went too far for the likes of the Tories. Tories hate unions because they protect the workforce from being exploited by unscupulous rich employers. Of course this was a Nationalised industry that Thatcher could have
worked to make the mines more profitable. She used the excuse that Nationalised industries were non profit making and therefore they had to go.
No thought or consideration for the suffering she inflited upon so many.

There wasn't a credible alternative for most of her time in power. I think there is an argument for Labour presenting Thatcher two of her three victories on a silver plate.

The labour party lost the 1979 election, the people thought it time for a change - additionally nobody had ever lived under Thatcher's particular brand of Conservatism where high unemployment was an acceptable policy to control inflation.
If it wasn't for the Falkland War in 1982, Thatcher would have not won the next election. Her popularity was so low that she went into a war that could have been avoided. The Belgrano was sailing away when it was sunk. Thatcher's actions cost the lives of thousands of Argentinians as well as hundreds of our own.

by **Ivan** Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:29 pm

How and why did Thatcher torpedo this industry?

Rock. Thatcher closed pits that were still viable (as the John Prescott article mentions) out of spite. She wanted revenge on the miners because they had got the better of the Tories twice before, in 1972 and 1974. Miners had been poorly paid compared to factory workers, but with the dramatic rise in the price of oil in the early 1970s, their value to the economy increased. In 1974, the Tories called an early election on the theme "who governs Britain, us or the miners?" The Tories (then led by Edward Heath) lost power and Thatcher was determined to get her revenge, calling the miners “the enemy within”.

These are the reasons why Thatcher won three elections:-

- In 1979, like most Tories (and Republicans), she told lies – such as she wouldn’t raise VAT (but increased it from 8% to 15% as soon as she gained power), and that she would reduce unemployment from its level of 1.4 million (within four years it was 3.2 million). There was also the novelty factor of the first female Prime Minister in the UK.

- She bribed working class voters by letting them buy their council-owned houses at a huge discount.

- Most of the UK press was, and still is, right-wing, being owned by a handful of very rich men.

- In 1983, she cashed in on the prevailing jingoism after the Falklands War.

- After the Labour Party elected a left-wing leader in 1980, some on the right broke away and formed the Social Democratic Party. They later merged with the Liberal Party to form the Liberal Democrats, but it meant that opposition to the Tories was badly split.

- She privatised gas, electricity and telecommunications and once again bribed voters, this time with cheap shares.

- She had the benefit of North Sea oil revenues (about £78 billion) and the proceeds from privatisation (about £65 billion).

by ROB Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:48 pm

Mel,

I must disagree on the Falklands War. Argentinians are programmed to believe that previously non-inhabited islands colonized by thoroughly British Falkland Islanders are their ordained property. History teaches that Argentina is a habitual junta-“governed” country under whose despotic rule no sane Australian, American USV, Canadian, New Zealander, or Brit (last for emphasis) would tolerate being even for a moment. Those damnable pompous pretenders needed the Teddy Roosevelt-ian “Big Stick”, the only language they understand, to keep their greedy, grubby hands off of British territory inhabited by Falkland Islanders who are British citizens by law and by choice.

I “get” the jump in popularity engendered by Thatcher’s Falkland War role. I find it odious that anyone would undertake a war for such selfish, evil purpose, but sometimes people do the right thing for the wrong reason. Stalin threw everything he could command into defeating Hitler, and history teaches us that Stalin’s motives were impure for just about everything he did.

You’ve said that there was no credible alternative to Thatcher. That’s an interesting comment, bringing to mind a recent US presidential victory that was due partly to the alternative’s odiousness to most voters. In that particular election, certain folks have told me in confidence that they voted for the other fellow, who they cannot stand, because their fellow wasn’t fit to be someone else’s sewer cleaner. Is that what put Thatcher in office? Is that what propelled her to her third victory?

Just a thought: George H.W. “Daddy” Bush’s popularity soared after Desert Shield/Desert Storm, 1990-1991; one year nine months later, William Jefferson Clinton cleaned his clock. Wha’ happened in the UK?

One more thought: Britain still sits on coal. Given British ingenuity, is it possible to resurrect British coal mining and perhaps figure a way to convert coal to exportable energy?

by ROB Sun Apr 14, 2013 11:10 pm

Ivan,

Just a thought. Your VAT is our sales tax. We pay sight and one quarter percent where I live. Virginia Beach, Virginia residents pay ten percent, and they are howling.

About a year ago, maybe a bit more, I called the provincial tax office in Ontario to find out about their exceptionally high sales tax, called “unified tax” in Ontario, I believe. The nice lady on the other end patiently answered all of my questions (over an hour’s worth), and I came away wishing that I paid fourteen percent sales tax.

Why? Part of their unified tax funds Canada’s universal health care coverage. My family and I pay more than $900.00 per month premium for health care insurance. Ontarians pay $0.00 per month. My family and I pay per year deductibles ranging from $200.00 or so for medications to $1,800.00 for surgical procedures. Ontarians pay $0.00. My family and I pay $35.00-$50.00 copays per doctor’s visit. Ontarians pay $0.00.

I would take fourteen percent on my $0.96 fountain drink refill, jacking the “out-the-door” price up from $1.04 all the way up to (be still my heart!) $1.10, over an arm, a leg, and half my firstborn anytime!

by **Ivan** Sun Apr 14, 2013 11:36 pm

Tosh wrote:-
I am responding to sickchip's platitudes which contained no facts nor sources, there is no reason for me to do otherwise. I am interested in what you consider to be a fact in politics or social studies?

I wasn’t talking about sickchip’s excellent post or your response to it, but the many platitudes you’ve posted on this thread, such as:-

“Capitalism is not the enemy, poor governance is the enemy.”

“A free democracy is not the tyranny of the majority.”

“Thatcher will correctly go down in history as the PM who restored democracy and individual liberty to this country.”

(You appear to have ignored the rebuttal I made of that last statement. Thatcher wasn’t interested in democracy and undermined it, for example, in local government.)

These are what I call facts:-

- Margaret Thatcher spent New Year’s Eve with Jimmy Savile at Chequers for eleven successive years.

- 13,000 millionaires have just received a tax cut.

- The number of pupils getting five Grade A-C GCSEs rose from 54% in 1997 to 69% in 2010.

Of course I accept that some facts are misleading and don’t tell the whole story. A favourite Tory one this week is that Harold Wilson shut more coal mines in the 1960s than Thatcher did in the 1980s. It’s true, but there were more pits in the 1960s, when unprofitable ones were shut, when unemployment was low, wages were higher in factories and the pits just couldn’t get the staff. Thatcher shut viable pits for political reasons.

These are just your opinions:-

“I find the self righteous preaching of the socialist no less disingenuous and nauseous than the evangelical.”

“She is to be praised for reducing union power, denationalizing SOME industries and selling council houses.”

“I live in a free country.”

“Greed is good.”

Then you have the cheek to say that “James specialises in bare assertions”. What a Face

I agree with you that “memories are very subjective”, but that includes your memory and is why good practice includes providing some sources to support your comments – just as you expect Christians to be able to do on the religion board.

by Tosh Mon Apr 15, 2013 12:33 am

I simply do not accept Maggus Christus is dead, she is the Messiah and I love her, but not in a sexual way, I gave up necrophilia years ago.

As for my platitudes, they are supported by logic and are self evident.

“Capitalism is not the enemy, poor governance is the enemy.”

Logic 101, our governments decide the economic system of our nation, ergo if capitalism is the enemy then by definition it is a product of poor governance. Logic 102, I can provide as many facts that prove capitalism is not the enemy than you can for it being the enemy, and the public and their elected representatives seem to agree with me. One big persuader is the rest of the developed world operates a capitalist system and as I keep saying, we are not an island.

“A free democracy is not the tyranny of the majority.”

Fact, one of the preconditions of a democracy is constitutional freedoms, the concept of a free democracy regulates the majority from tyrannising minorities, the smallest minority being me, in our case these constitutional freedoms are protected by the monarch. Go and check the democracy index the preconditions are listed.

“Thatcher will correctly go down in history as the PM who restored democracy and individual liberty to this country.”

Both our individual liberty and democracy were being threatened by the influence of an unelected special interest group called the TUC, she removed their power and influence. No longer could they hold governments and the public to ransom, the facts are a matter of record, much legislation was passed to limit their power and actions, and these laws have never been repealed by a Labour government. If you really want me to drag out every industrial strike in the 70s and 80s compared to the rest of the developed world I will. Do you deny the fact that is was the Unions who brought Ted Heath to his knees through industrial action ?

You don't think unelected unions being able to get rid of an elected government is a threat to democracy ?

You don't think a baying mob preventing some one going to work is a threat to individual liberty ?

You are up to your neck in facts, you are just too indoctrinated to see them.

by Mel Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:17 am

Rock, "I “get” the jump in popularity engendered by Thatcher’s Falkland War role. I find it odious that anyone would undertake a war for such selfish, evil purpose, but sometimes people do the right thing for the wrong reason."

Nail on head there my friend with your last sentence.

I think Ivan sums up Thatcher's doings superbly. Far better than my poor attempt Rock.

by Mel Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:25 am

Tosh, "I simply do not accept Maggus Christus is dead, she is the Messiah and I love her, but not in a sexual way, I gave up necrophilia years ago."

It is plainly obvious that you base your "love" for this evil woman upon one thing, the defeat of the Trade Union. You obviously care not about all the other deadly deeds because presumably you fortunately were not affected.

In any case you condone "greed" which says it all about your views.

by Tosh Mon Apr 15, 2013 12:22 pm

It is plainly obvious that you base your "love" for this evil woman upon one thing, the defeat of the Trade Union. You obviously care not about all the other deadly deeds because presumably you fortunately were not affected.

Why do you people insist on inventing my position, it is intellectually dishonest to say the least. I have made it clear there were many deadly deeds carried out by MT and some good, I have no objections to regulated trade unions but during the 70s and 80s our economy was blighted by irresponsible and selfish trade unions, mostly in the public sector.

In any case you condone "greed" which says it all about your views.

I do not condone greed, and I do not condone the greed behind ludicrous union demands in the past, greed is not confined to the rich nor the capitalist.

by Tosh Mon Apr 15, 2013 12:24 pm

Rock, "I “get” the jump in popularity engendered by Thatcher’s Falkland War role. I find it odious that anyone would undertake a war for such selfish, evil purpose, but sometimes people do the right thing for the wrong reason."

You have no evidence to support your assertion that Thatcher entered the conflict for a selfish, evil purpose....NONE, it is your opinion.

by Tosh Mon Apr 15, 2013 12:36 pm

We are all Thatcher's children except the commie dinosaurs who still reside in the class ridden past of the mid 20th century, they haven't woken up to the reality that socialism was tried by many countries and it failed in them all.

by blueturando Mon Apr 15, 2013 2:29 pm

These are what I call facts:-

- Margaret Thatcher spent New Year’s Eve with Jimmy Savile at Chequers for eleven successive years.

Come on Ivan whats that supposed to mean? Just her and Jimmy was it? And I suppose no Labour politicians have spent time in Savilles company either?

- 13,000 millionaires have just received a tax cut.

Fact......13,000 Millionaires are paying more tax under this government than under the last Labour government

- The number of pupils getting five Grade A-C GCSEs rose from 54% in 1997 to 69% in 2010.

Fact.....Make exams easier and the pass rates will rise

Of course I accept that some facts are misleading and don’t tell the whole story. A favourite Tory one this week is that Harold Wilson shut more coal mines in the 1960s than Thatcher did in the 1980s. It’s true, but there were more pits in the 1960s, when unprofitable ones were shut, when unemployment was low, wages were higher in factories and the pits just couldn’t get the staff. Thatcher shut viable pits for political reasons.

Fact....Yes there were more pit closures under Wilson than Thatcher and I guess those miners were also left on the scrap heap... to quote the words of the lefties here. Just goes to show the motivations of the unions in the 80's were purely political and nothing to do with looking after their members.

If those pits were viable then the unions or private businesses could have taken them on and made a profit? Why didn't this happen?

by Tosh Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:10 pm

There were no bigger proponents of the art of " jobs for the boys " than Unions, economic considerations were non-existent, the tax payer was expected to maintain public sector jobs regardless of the cost to the general public.

We are all in it together didn't apply unless you were a member of a union.

by **Ivan** Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:21 pm

I wrote:-
unprofitable ones were shut, when unemployment was low, wages were higher in factories and the pits just couldn’t get the staff.

blueturando wrote:-
If those pits were viable

They weren't - can't you read?? Exclamation

Fact.....Make exams easier and the pass rates will rise

That isn't 'a fact' - it's an opinion, or more probably, a Tory tabloid myth, which hasn't been substantiated by any reliable evidence.

Jeez, you must be bloody desperate if this crap is the best that you can do. I don't think you'll find any Labour Prime Ministers who spent every year at Chequers with Savile - or had a paedophile ring at the heart of their government.

by **astradt1** Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:35 pm

Stop the clocks: The chimes of Big Ben will be silenced for the duration of Thatcher's funeral in special Parliament tribute
Famous bell to fall silent for the first time since Winston Churchill's death
Commons Speaker John Bercow says there is 'profound dignity' in silence
Parliament will pay tribute to former Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher
Family rejected idea of ringing bell once for each of her 87 years

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2309435/Margaret-Thatcher-funeral-Big-Ben-silenced-duration-special-Parliament-tribute.html

I'm just waiting for the announcement that there is to be a national minutes silence to honor Saint Margaret..........

by Tosh Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:09 pm

I'm just waiting for the announcement that there is to be a national minutes silence to honor Saint Margaret..........

She certainly silenced most of the left wing loonies, but not all of them.

One more generation and they will be gone.

by oftenwrong Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:23 pm

Slow day today, Tosh?

by Tosh Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:42 pm

Slow day today, Tosh?

Funeral nerves, oftenwrong ?

by Tosh Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:48 pm

Ivan,

The sage blueturando was asking a simple question, if Thatcher closed viable pits why was there no management buy out or workers cooperative or private buyer willing to take them over ?

Do you have a list of the viable pits she closed to check your source ?

by oftenwrong Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:51 pm

In a sense, yes. The thing is taking on an apparently unstoppable momentum, like some Hollywood shocker "2013 London brought to standstill for years!"

The miltary refer to "Mission Creep", and the Tory bandwagon appears intent upon transforming a Religious ceremony into their launch-platform for the next election.

Hallelluya. But all in the BEST possible taste!

by Tosh Mon Apr 15, 2013 6:09 pm

In 1983, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission found that 75 percent of British pits were losing money. It cost £44 to mine a metric ton of British coal. America, Australia, and South Africa were selling it on the world market for £32 a metric ton.

Taxpayers were subsidising the mining industry to the tune of £1.3 billion annually. This figure doesn’t include the vast cost to taxpayer-funded industries such as steel and electricity which were obliged to buy British coal.

But when Arthur Scargill appeared before a Parliamentary committee and was asked at what level of loss it was acceptable to close a pit he answered “As far as I can see, the loss is without limits.”

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1497/thatcher_s_achievements_will_long_outlive_the_spite_of_sheffield_s_sons_and_daughters

by Tosh Mon Apr 15, 2013 6:15 pm

I noticed a figure in this article which gets to the real root of the problem.

Productivity increases had come in at 20 percent below the level set in the 1974 Plan for Coal.

If one takes 20% off £44 per ton it works out at about £35, not too far away from our competitors, plus the savings to other nationalised industries that were forced to buy the coal.

In reality the miners lost their living because of a prolonged drop in productivity that they simply refused to address.

Just before the First World War the mines employed more than 1 million men in 3,000 pits producing 300 million tonnes of coal annually.

By the time the industry was nationalised in 1947 700,000 men were producing just 200 million tonnes a year.

To improve this situation, in 1950, the first Plan for Coal pumped £520 million into the industry to boost production to 240 million tonnes a year. This target was never met.

By 1974 coal accounted for less than one third of energy consumption in Britain. Wilson’s incoming Labour government published a new Plan for Coal which predicted an increase in production from 110 million tonnes to 135 million tonnes a year by 1985. This was never achieved.

Margaret Thatcher’s government inherited a coal industry which had seen productivity collapse by 6 percent in five years.
[b]

In reality the miners union believed the tax payer should pay for losses rather than their members increase productivity.

by **Phil Hornby** Mon Apr 15, 2013 6:28 pm

I seem to detect from a necessarily-speedy glance at The Sun today that - as could have been predicted - although Miliband made a balanced 'tribute' to the departed woman, that fine upstanding 'paid-for' journalist, Trevor Kavanagh, has nonetheless suggested in a sly way that he didn't. It just goes to show that when the actual facts don't quite fit the agenda which Murdoch finds convenient, his newspapers will simply make them up!

All this might be disturbing, were it not for the fact that it suggests that panic is abroad in the newsroom and that desperate measures are required to bolster their beloved Tories. Why ever could that be...?

by Tosh Mon Apr 15, 2013 6:36 pm

In a sense, yes. The thing is taking on an apparently unstoppable momentum,

Ancestor worship is very reassuring to the human psyche, the other side of the division will get their turn when Arthur Scargill dies.

by Tosh Mon Apr 15, 2013 6:39 pm

The Daily Telegraph revealed this week that the very miners he once led now view him “as bad as Margaret Thatcher” after dragging the union through the courts in a legal row over perks.

" Perks " ??

Surely a socialist is not interested in material perks, this must be wrong.

by Tosh Mon Apr 15, 2013 6:43 pm

Arthur Scargill loses High Court battle to make union pay his rent for rest of his life

Why does a man living in Barnsley need a plush London flat ?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/arthur-scargill-loses-high-court-1501128

by Tosh Mon Apr 15, 2013 6:47 pm

It seems if you are a Marxist you expect every one else to pay for all expenditure, sounds a bit greedy to me.....and familiar.

by Tosh Mon Apr 15, 2013 6:49 pm

This is what happens when the religion thread goes quiet.

by Sponsored content