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 Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:28 pm

We can credit her with nothing but creating misery and disruction of peoples lives and her deregulation of the banking sector for which we now suffer.

I am not defending how she went about treating the sick man of Europe but to deny we were sick is simply ignoring reality.

The unions must share the blame, they simply used their power and influence to obstruct change, and change was essential for oncoming globalisation.

by Mel Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:33 pm

As far as manufacturing goes now in this country we are not competative, the quality is poor and profits are not ploughed back but invested overseas in offshore accounts. Therefore we are worse off than before the Witch decimated all those nationalised industries.
Quality of goods is imperative in a global market and we suffer because wages are kept low, we have no Union power to address this situation and therefore the workforce have no incentive to produce first class products.

by bobby Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:33 pm

rockonbrother said:" To ensure clarity on my part, I was an “eyewitness” to the Falklands War, via multiple updates per hour on CNN."

Yes that’s very clear. But I was under the impression that to be an eye witness means that the viewing object has to be in the direct sight of a bleeding eye, hence EYE WITNESS. All you witnessed was edited news reels, so TV viewer, I.e sat on your Black Texan arse watching television yes, EYE WITNES “NO”

by Tosh Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:41 pm

I'm not arguing with this, though, the nationalised industries were taking the piss and Thatcher put a stop to that. It doesn't make her a heroine though to the families and communities that lost everything, and who now live in the industrial wastelands of former heavy industries.

What Thatcher did not understand was these industries formed communities, and the men in the communities identified themselves with their job, their job was part of their culture and history and when they lost their job, they lost their identity.

Nowadays we find this rather odd and old fashioned but my factory was in a pit and steel village, and I watched them struggle to adapt to their new environment and most blew their massive redundancies on drink and gambling, these were men who were proud of their identity and Thatcher removed their dignity and self esteem.

Very tragic and as I said it is impossible for me not to dislike her for her callous attitudes to other human beings, and to dislike the unions for their blinkered ideology.

by Tosh Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:51 pm

As for the Falklands, I disagreed with our military response but I doubt Thatcher simply invaded to raise public support or for personal glory, she was a pragmatist and needed to maintain Britain's standing on the world stage.

I don't care about such things but a lot of Brits like to be " Great Brits ".

by oftenwrong Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:04 pm

Perhaps you could tell us whether Union Recognition in the workplace ever entered your Business Plan, Tosh.

Many Scottish businesses found it to be an essential ingredient, so your opinion is relevant.

by Tosh Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:26 pm

Perhaps you could tell us whether Union Recognition in the workplace ever entered your Business Plan, Tosh.

I invited the unions in and none joined, they had a contact of employment that protected both parties " rights", and I paid high productivity bonuses.
The men got rid of the slackers not me, they affected their team bonus, a form of social capitalism.

For me it was a simple partnership, I had worked on the other side of the desk and knew what motivated me, it wasn't my main source of income so it was up to them if the company stayed open or not, and it never lost money in many different trading environments.

Manufacturing is not easy, it depends on human nature and human nature is fickle.

by Tosh Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:31 pm

Many Scottish businesses found it to be an essential ingredient, so your opinion is relevant.

Many Scottish businesses found it not to be essential, so your opinion is irrelevant, I do not oppose the principle of unions but they cannot run a company nor " PRESERVE " jobs.

by Tosh Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:58 pm

As far as manufacturing goes now in this country we are not competative, the quality is poor and profits are not ploughed back but invested overseas in offshore accounts. Therefore we are worse off than before the Witch decimated all those nationalised industries.

Manufacturing in this country is competitive or it wouldn't be here, and we are better off because our manufacturers are not running up huge losses paid for by the tax payer.

The old class system reduced the value of skilled engineers, and created unworkable industrial relations, you can't operate on a " them and us attitude " in the same company.

by Mel Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:30 pm

"Manufacturing in this country is competitive or it wouldn't be here"

Generally it is just about competitive in the case of those who are still here and have survived. If companies paid a decent wage and gave a little less to the shareholders who are sitting on their backsides creaming off the profits and putting their gains in offshore accounts things would be different.
We need to be more quality minded in our manufacturing with less emphasis on greed and the looking to employ those who have become desperate for work (skilled and unskilled) who will work for peanuts with no interest in their jobs whatsoever. Just a means of putting something on the table for their families. This what it has become with the legacy of the Witches doctrine--dog eat dog "make MONEY any way you can" Meaning even if you have to tread all over your fellow workman to do so. PHA!!!! The total creation of division and Cameron and Co continue with the dirty work.

by Tosh Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:10 pm

If companies paid a decent wage and gave a little less to the shareholders who are sitting on their backsides creaming off the profits and putting their gains in offshore accounts things would be different.

Mel, our companies are governed by the laws of competition, wages and dividends are determined by these laws, manufacturing is not like the banking industry, long term investment in technology and design is an essential policy with all manufacturers competing against each other.

I recall the unions objecting to technology because it threatened jobs, talk about an ostrich with its head in the sand.

Business is just like any life form, it must be capable of adapting to new environments, it must evolve to survive, economics is Darwinian, the sooner we embrace this the better. We have no God given right to be a developed country and it is a survival race, the test of our civilisation is how we regulate the race and how we treat the losers, and that is where politics comes in.

Globalisation has removed the traditional influence of govt in creating wealth, now all it can do is determine the fairest way of distributing it.

by Tosh Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:25 pm

A business innovation is like a genetic variation, the good ones are passed down and the bad ones lead to extinction, the business environment is changing rapidly all the time, it is continually exerting competitive pressures on the fittest and the weakest.

Life is as competitive now as it was 2 billion years ago, we cannot make it fair but we can limit the damage it causes, socialism is an ideal that ignores human nature and that is why it never worked.

You cannot force humans not to compete, not in a free democracy.

by **Ivan** Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:42 pm

Source: http://www.politicsworldwide.com/topic/thatcher-is-dead/page/2/#post-43457

by boatlady Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:03 pm

Brilliant link, Ivan

by bobby Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:04 pm

Tosh said: "You cannot force humans not to compete, not in a free democracy"

What utter nonsense. How can an unemployed man compete with another unemployed man, can one be more unemployed than the other, or are you thinking that one may have already lost his home whereas the other is just about to, which one of these unfortunates becomes the winner, the one who led the way to homelessness or the one about to loose everything.

I guess you may be thinking or not whichever the case may be, that they can compete for a job with yet a few more in the same position all looking for non existent work at a living wage, because quite frankly I can't see how those with sweet F all can compete for other that who gets the cardboard box for a washing machine and who gets one for a Hoover to live in.

I find it a sick society when an employer expects an employee to subsidise his own job, then have to live in fear as the employee looks for even more ways to lower his wage bill. Quite frankly I believe that if an individual can not pay a decent living wage, he has no right in being and employer at all, just why should a man have to give 8 hours a day for a pittance to someone who is living the high life off of his labour. If there are to be any job subsidies it should be funded by Government in a nationalised industry whereas the end product can be used by the general public, not for the Government and the employee’s themselves subsidising jobs which the poor buggers that are producing whatever couldn’t even dream of ever owning.

by Shirina Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:09 pm

Business is just like any life form, it must be capable of adapting to new environments, it must evolve to survive, economics is Darwinian, the sooner we embrace this the better.

According to Darwinian evolution, the beneficial traits of an organism will be passed on to the next generation while the non-beneficial traits will be weeded out. But here's the problem: What if a creature were to evolve in such a way that the brain was in direct competition with the heart? Obviously, the creature needs both to survive, but if the heart steals all of the oxygen or the brain steals all of the blood, both will die, as will the creature. That's not such a good path to survival.

Except that's EXACTLY what our current business model is doing - pitting the workers against the managerial aristocracy. If the managerial aristocracy, represented by the brain, keeps taking the lion's share of the blood oxygen, the workers, represented by the heart, have to work harder and harder to keep the blood pumping. When the heart fails, which it eventually will, no more blood to the brain and it begins starving for more oxygen (which, of course, is delivered by blood).

You can see where this is going.

Workers, executives, and shareholders all have a symbiotic relationship. If our Darwininan economic model says that profits this year always have to be higher than last year, that prices must always go up, and that workers are the first lambs to be slaughtered to increase those profits, it is only a matter of time before no one has the money to buy the products and services that keep the money coming in.

Sure, you can outsource your manufacturing jobs, send them overseas where a television manufacturer, for instance, can pay pennies on the dollar compared to Western workers. The problem arises when those cheaply made TVs are exported back to the West where hordes of unemployed or underemployed workers can no longer afford them. The overseas workers that made the TVs can't afford them, either, thanks to the sweatshop wages. So what happens? Well ... to put it into medical parlance, a myocardial infarction occurs and then the brain dies. What happened in 2008 (the Great Recession) was a warning sign of things to come.

Not such a great evolutionary step, I would think.

by **Phil Hornby** Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:24 pm

A thought-provoking analogy, Shirina.

And with all the management 'knowledge' which peppers some posts here, one would think that such managers would never find themselves in any sort of difficulty in respect of workforce relations.

Yet some of us know that there has been good money to be made from assisting to remedy the surprising failure of some to resist the call of their over-inflated egos...

by Tosh Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:40 pm

Ivan,

Do you accept the principle of individual liberty, do you accept a person has a right to compete or not to compete ?

If you do, then you must have a system that enables both, if you do not then unfortunately the world we must survive in does and we are not a self sustaining island.

This competitive system inevitably creates winners and losers, and it is up to a social democracy to distribute the proceeds to lessen the effects of losing.

Now I have great admiration for the ideals of TB but idealists are prone to ignoring reality, and the reality is socialism ignores human nature and imposes on individual liberty, plus it simply does not create wealth.

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

by oftenwrong Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:02 pm

Soldiers can only be persuaded to put themselves in harm's way because all of us want to believe that unpleasantness only happens to other people.

A similar hope springs in the breast of the entrepreneur businessman.

The general tone of your commentary does not convey the impression of an entirely successful outcome to your personal endeavours, Tosh, but please don't think I actually want to know. Either way. Just saying. You're chosen style is what you want it to be.

by oftenwrong Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:12 pm

boatlady wrote:Brilliant link, Ivan

Concur. Which of our True Blues will attempt a dismissal?

by Mel Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:36 pm

Fantastic link Ivan, thank you.

Tosh Quote--"Globalisation has removed the traditional influence of govt in creating wealth, now all it can do is determine the fairest way of distributing it."

You jest sir? Fair distribution of wealth by a Tory govenment has never happened and never will. The difference is that some past Tory administrations have been very slightly less hard on the poor with their distribution in favour of the rich.Thatcher became the worst ever in this context and Cameron has superceded her.

We have more billionairs during the past 3 yrs than ever before. What does that tell us Tosh?

by Tosh Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:36 pm

According to Darwinian evolution, the beneficial traits of an organism will be passed on to the next generation while the non-beneficial traits will be weeded out. But here's the problem: What if a creature were to evolve in such a way that the brain was in direct competition with the heart? Obviously, the creature needs both to survive, but if the heart steals all of the oxygen or the brain steals all of the blood, both will die, as will the creature. That's not such a good path to survival.

Evolutionary trade offs are a matter of record, one must compete and cooperate at the same time to survive as the fittest group, winners need losers to cooperate in order to compete against other groups.

You are suggesting the right to compete as an individual within a group be removed, and I suggest that variation will not survive long unless it is universally agreed and adopted by all groups.

You cannot remove human nature and human rights without a mandate under the guise of fairness.

by Tosh Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:39 pm

And with all the management 'knowledge' which peppers some posts here, one would think that such managers would never find themselves in any sort of difficulty in respect of workforce relations.

Nope, that is what makes a successful manager, skilled men do not grow on trees, and they are by nature competitive.

by Tosh Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:50 pm

The general tone of your commentary does not convey the impression of an entirely successful outcome to your personal endeavours, Tosh, but please don't think I actually want to know. Either way. Just saying. You're chosen style is what you want it to be.

My personal endeavors dwarf both your envy and your comprehension skills by some margin, may I suggest you stick to inventing your own position Sage.

Hard to misinterpret this but you managed it :

it wasn't my main source of income so it was up to them if the company stayed open or not, and it never lost money in many different trading environments.

Still waiting for any rebuttal concerning content Mr So Called Bean Counter, cat got your tongue ??

LMAO.

by Tosh Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:55 pm

You jest sir? Fair distribution of wealth by a Tory govenment has never happened and never will. The difference is that some past Tory administrations have been very slightly less hard on the poor with their distribution in favour of the rich.Thatcher became the worst ever in this context and Cameron has superceded her.

Where in my commentary did I suggest our incumbent coalition distributes wealth fairly ?

by Tosh Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:03 pm

Concur. Which of our True Blues will attempt a dismissal?

I dismissed his ideology and I am not a true blue, I see your reading skills are on a par with your counting skills.

Now I have great admiration for the ideals of TB but idealists are prone to ignoring reality, and the reality is socialism ignores human nature and imposes on individual liberty, plus it simply does not create wealth.

There is one thing I know more about than religion, running a business, so get to it and dismiss my arguments instead of hiding behind snide remarks, I will chew you up either tactic.

by ROB Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:28 pm

Mel,

I’m glad to see you “back”, and I pray that your return is indicative of good health and stability for your family and you.

Before anything else, I repeat this. I know next to nothing about Thatcher’s domestic policies and actions. The “next to” is confined to the Thatcher-imposed poll tax, which according to what I could glean from here and the Internet was instituted on a “phased in” basis, with Scots being the first phase, and thus bearing the burden alone whilst English voted poll-tax free.

I recently posted this…

RockOnBrother, Thursday 11 April 2013, 1:01, on Does inequality matter? in Other Political And Economic Issues
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t709p90-does-inequality-matter#38460

… on the inequality thread. Please read it, and perhaps the entire Wikipedia featured article from which it is drawn, at your leisure. Wiki featured articles are extraordinarily well-cited and accurate, even though anything associated with the wicked four letter word “wiki” is disdained by teachers, professors, and school and university librarians.

In Alabama and throughout the South, the poll tax was used to deny voting rights to Black citizens. I’ve “extrapolated” the same intent unto imposition of a poll tax unto Scots. Perhaps my interpretation is inaccurate, but it is what it is.

Regarding the Falklands War, I don’t care why Thatcher dispatched the Royal Navy Task Force with such immediacy and definitiveness, I care that Thatcher dispatched the Royal Navy Task Force with such immediacy and definitiveness. That’s the Britain I “know” from my studies, the Britain the sacred soil from which on 15 September 1940 Hurricane and Spitfire aviators launched themselves into the air multiple times to “tell” Goering’s and Hitler’s coven of airborne conquerors “Hell NO!”

In the summer of 1972, I relived the years 1936 through 1945 via Newsweek, Time, US News and World Report, Life, and Look magazines, each day proceeding chronologically forward through the pertinent stories. I remember a photo of a Battle of Britain poster showing a bulldog Brit, sleeves rolled up, staring defiantly upwards into a German bomber-filled English sky, huge fist extended skyward at the end of muscled arm, shouting, “Well, alone then!”

The CNN coverage of the Falklands War, including that famous scene outside 10 Downing Street when the Secretary of State for Defence read these words from the South Atlantic, “Be pleased to inform Her Majesty that the White Ensign flies alongside the Union Flag in South Georgia. God Save the Queen”, took my mind back to 1940 and the bulldog Brit that was ready to climb a ladder and swat the vermin out of his sacred skies with is bare hands. The Falklands War, in my view, was the British people closing ranks and defending their own and righteousness, “if necessary, for years, if necessary, alone.” For many Americans, including me, Thatcher was the face of British resolve during that time.

That being said, once again I reiterate, I know next to nothing about Thatcher’s domestic policies and actions, and that “next to” that I think that I do know, imposition of a poll tax on Scots, I abhor.

by Tosh Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:35 pm

We have more billionairs during the past 3 yrs than ever before. What does that tell us Tosh?

Who cares as long as they are not breaking the law and pay their taxes, you people are obsessed with the winners.

by **Ivan** Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:02 pm

Thatcher funeral: activists 'fearful of arrest' for discussing protest

“Commander Christine Jones said that if police get intelligence that crimes are planned (at the Thatcher funeral) they will make arrests, which critics claim are ‘pre-emptive arrests’. She also confirmed police were monitoring social media discussions about Thatcher's funeral. A police monitoring group, Netpol, said activists were fearful of being arrested, harassed by the police or put under surveillance, for just discussing staging protests.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/11/thatcher-funeral-activists-fearful-arrest

Welcome to fascist Britain. For all the Tory talk of ‘freedom for the individual’, this is what it comes down to – you will get arrested for discussing what you might be inclined to do. I appreciate there is a need to protect foreign dignitaries who will be attending, but whatever happened to the right to express dissent? The police are scouring Twitter and Facebook, as well as left-wing forums, to see what’s being planned. Good evening, constable.

Personally, I can’t see the point of going anywhere near the funeral. Even if people hated Thatcher so much that they want to harm her, it’s too late, she’s dead, as are her evil friends Pinochet and Savile. For the record, I haven’t been to London for more than a year – can’t stand the place – and have no plans to go there in the foreseeable future. However, if I’m not on the forum next Tuesday evening or Wednesday, you will know that I’ve received a knock on the door…… What a Face

by Tosh Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:39 pm

I remember a fascist Britain when a baying mob could physically stop you from going to work with impunity.

If Christine is reading this, I am not nor never have been a member of the Communist party.

by oftenwrong Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:40 pm

The whole point of a Democacy is that the will of the majority prevails.
Tory jackals have never been in a majority, but they are cunning.

by ROB Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:22 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
The whole point of a Democacy is that the will of the majority prevails.

When the United States Constitution is found by a preponderance of We the People to be fundamentally flawed, We the People are provided within the US Constitution with a way to fix the flaw. They’re called Constitutional Amendments, requiring proposal by two thirds vote of each House of Congress and ratification by three fourths of the states.

The Westminster system of democracy, i.e., government of the people, by the people, for the people which derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, upon observation from over here seems fundamentally flawed. A government (Westminster terminology)/administration (US terminology) that does not derive its powers from the consent of the governed does not possess just powers; it just possesses powers. Y’all ought to examine y’all’s “unwritten constitution” (good luck with that), discover how to amend that bad boy, and get to amending your Westminster system to prevent future governments that are not of the people, by the people, for the people.

This is just my opinion, as I cannot peer into the brains of Brits or anyone else, but it seems that your long governmental history, going back at least to Runnymede 1215 AD and perhaps to some Harold dude in eight hundred something, somehow prevents y’all from thinking of y’all-selves as We the People of England, We the People of Scotland, We the People of Wales, whatever it is the people of Northern Ireland/Ulster might be, and collectively We the People of the United Kingdom. Perhaps a “cold turkey” withdrawal from monarchy might help a collective mental transformation from “subjects” of various governments to citizen co-owners of every government. I think it abhorrent that a government can be formed by a minority of MPs by enticing anti-Labour MPs of another party into an unholy dictatorial alliance which, by its very existence, usurps the will of We the People of the United Kingdom.

I’m not talking, ideologies, I’m not talking parties, I’m not talking politics, ‘m not talking policies; I’m talking democracy. The world’s prime propagator of democracy needs to get its house in order.

by **Ivan** Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:25 pm

You can't just shut us up now that Margaret Thatcher's dead

Extracts from an article by Mark Steel:-

“Even those who disagreed with her, respected her as a conviction politician”, it was said many times, as if everyone would participate in the mourning. But soon it was impossible to pretend there was a respectful consensus, not because of the odd party in the street, but from a widespread and considered contempt. In many areas it must have been confusing for Jehovah’s Witnesses, as every time they knocked on a door and asked, “Have you heard the good news”, they’d be told “Yes mate, I have, do you want to come in for a beer?”

Before long came the complaints, such as Tony Blair saying: “Even if you disagree with someone very strongly, at the moment of their passing you should show some respect.” Presumably then, when Bin Laden was killed, Blair’s statement was: “Although I didn’t agree with Osama’s policies, he was a conviction terrorist, a colourful character whose short films were not only fun but educational as well. He will be sadly missed.”

The disrespect was inevitable, as millions were opposed to her not because they disagreed with her, but because she’d helped to ruin their lives. If someone robs your house, you don’t say: “I disagreed with the burglar’s policy, of tying me to a chair with gaffer tape and stripping the place bare, even taking the pickled onions, which I consider to be divisive. But I did admire his convictions.”

In so many areas, the party that insists we show compassion for their departed heroine made a virtue of showing none when she was their leader. Strangely, it’s now her supporters who are insulting her memory, with a funeral paid for by the taxpayer. Surely it would be more fitting to leave her where she is, and say: “If you can’t stand on your own two feet, you can't expect help from the state.”

For the whole article:-
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/mark-steel-you-cant-just-shut-us-up-now-that-margaret-thatchers-dead-8568785.html

by **astradt1** Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:40 pm

Thatcher to have funeral with 'full military honors'

What does that mean?

What military awards/medals/rank has she received, when did she serve in the Forces?

by Tosh Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:55 pm

The whole point of a Democacy is that the will of the majority prevails.

Yep, and the whole point of a constitutional monarch is that all people enjoy the right to universally recognized freedoms, freedoms like rights that apply to the smallest minority, the individual.

A free democracy is not the tyranny of the majority.

by Mel Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:25 am

Thank you Rock for your kind words.

It t is very evident that people such as your goodself from overseas have little idea of the suffering of the masses that Thatcher generated against the British population.
Apart from all of that and more that she created further down the line of her tenure in office before she could not be tolerated any more even by her own Tory Cabinet, who could see her doings would put them well and truly out of office. Not that they being Tories were bothered about the welfare of those millions who had suffered at the hands of this Witch.

She created the forerunner for the banking crisis by d-regulating the banking sector and convinced Raegan that this was a good idea. The reason for this was to take up the loss of revenue tax previously derived from our industry which having decimated it had to resort to de-regulation. This allowed international bank and banking deals to operate in the City of London where bank to bank lending became the norm and consumer credit was sold vigourously right up until the Global Crisis.

Gordon Brown from the beginning of his office as Chancellor, strived to regulate the banking sector. However, he was unable to secure international regulation due to overseas governments failing to or not wishing to regulate their banking industries due to the resistance of their powerful banks.

She is responsible for the irresponsible dealings and unimaginable greed of those in the banking world who lined their pockets at the expense of global communities.

by **Ivan** Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:51 am

tlttf inflicted this on us:-
Five myths about Margaret Thatcher that must be refuted
You really ought to follow the link and read all 5 myths, it may hurt people of a sensitive disposition, but hey ho.
by Allister Heath

Not John Redwood or the usual ‘Daily Mail’ spam for once, but a far-right crackpot called Allister Heath who thinks corporation tax should be abolished, that there should be a flat rate of income tax of 30% for everyone, and wait for it - London should be an independent city state. And we’re expected to take him seriously!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_A.M.

Maybe if tlttf learned how to summarise an article in about fifteen lines, he could have listed all five ‘myths’ instead of just one, but hey ho, as they’re full of the usual Tory half-truths and distortions, they’re hardly worth reading anyway.

Allister Heath mistakenly creates the impression that landslide election victories are dependent on the percentage of votes received rather the number of seats won. The biggest percentage of votes received by a party since the Second World War was 48.8% by Labour in 1951, yet because of our quirky electoral system, they lost. Any British general election which results in a majority of over 100 seats tends to be described as a landslide. On that basis, Thatcher won two landslide majorities, as did Blair, but both won three elections in a row.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslide_victories

More pits were indeed closed in the 1960s than the 1980s, but again Heath deceives his readers. It wasn’t a case of “miners losing their jobs”, more that the coal mining industry couldn’t get the staff at a time when the pay was low, there was almost full unemployment and factory wages were higher. It wasn’t until the miners defeated the Tories twice in the early 1970s that their pay improved. Thatcher provoked the 1984 strike in order to exact revenge; on that occasion, the miners were trying to save their jobs, not increase their pay.

Heath talks of Thatcher “weaning the UK from extreme levels of inflation”, which is just a lie. It only took one year of Thatcher in office for inflation to rise above 21%, because of policies such as increasing VAT from 8% to 15%. As inflation was 10.9% in the last full month before Thatcher left office, Heath’s claim is absurd. Then he contradicts himself by quoting figures which show that the overall burden of taxation increased under Thatcher but describing as “nonsense” the correct conclusion that she wasn’t a real tax-cutter. Thatcher was a tax re-arranger; she shifted much of the burden from direct to indirect taxation, helping the better off in the process, and the poll tax which helped to bring her down was aimed at taking that a stage further.

I can agree with Allister Heath on one point – “far too much nonsense is being spoken about Lady Thatcher’s time in office”. The trouble is that much of the nonsense is being spouted by him.

by oftenwrong Sat Apr 13, 2013 12:14 pm

Any written History of the BBC will now record that overt censorship was applied to the Radio One Chart programme.

It was decided not to play a revived 1939 song because a former Prime Minister (1979–1990) died in 2013.

"You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you
You're so vain, I'll bet you think this song is about you
Don't you? don't you?"

by Tosh Sat Apr 13, 2013 12:52 pm

Anyway back to human nature and the socialist dream.

Just as the religious believers rarely practise what they preach and succumb to the drives of human nature, the socialist believer is no different.
Humans rarely live up to their own ideals and any system must take this contradiction into account, anyone who suggests a socialist is less greedy, competitive, self centred or ambitious than a capitalist is simply dreaming.

We must have a system that regulates the excesses of selfish capitalists and selfish socialists, in a democracy we cannot allow vested interests like banks or unions to govern our lives, neither were elected nor created for this purpose.

I find it quite dishonest when socialists accuse Thatcher or the Tories of inventing or encouraging individual greed, individual greed exists in socialist humans, whether they be MPs, Union officials, Councilors or public sector employees. Greed and unfairness is not confined to the rich and the upper classes, it is ubiquitous throughout society, it is human nature.
If there are people out there who really believe communities of working class individuals are more altruistic or egalitarian than a leafy suburb of Surrey, then they haven't experienced either.

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

by Tosh Sat Apr 13, 2013 1:02 pm

Thatcher deregulated financial services and financial services provide 25% of all tax revenue to the treasury, and were our largest employer. It was these profits that Blair-Brown used to double pubic sector expenditure, now replace this with loss making public sector industries and you have freakin Cuba.

Our financial service Industry was the envy of New York, Paris, Hong Kong, Frankfurt and Zurich, and it will be again.

Greed is good.

by **Phil Hornby** Sat Apr 13, 2013 1:18 pm

One of the very worst aspects of the current debates about Marmite Thatcher is that the Establishment appears to be making it almost compulsory for the nation's citizens to follow some approved programme of worship, or else be criticised for failing to bend the knee sufficiently.

The fact is that many people were badly wounded by the years in which she strutted about in a somewhat arrogant manner while making every effort to promote herself as some sort of saviour. We are told today that she had told her daughter that her 'place in history is assured'. Too right it is!

Good luck ( and sympathies ) to those who believe her to have been worthy of such affection ( that affection being proportionate to the expansion of their wallets during the relevant period, no doubt!) but perhaps they will also be sufficiently flexible to recognise that some thought her to be a rather nasty specimen, the like of whom we do not wish to see again. For the latter group it was bad enough to have to tolerate her repulsive practices during her life, without having to fawn over her when she finally dropped off the lofty perch she felt she warranted...

by Sponsored content