Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

thatcher:pure evil or misunderstood wonderwoman?

  • 07-09-2003 11:27pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,219 ✭✭✭


    well its been over a decade since her fall from grace and opinions round my family still seem sharply divided about her,for the record i think she is an evil women who deserves nothing but scorn.

    maggie thatcher? 38 votes

    truly an evil baby eating marauder
    0% 0 votes
    truly a magnificent country saving lil' old lady
    100% 38 votes


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    *Fap*

    *Fap*

    *Fap*


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    hmmm would you feel as vehemently towards what she achieved and the policies with which she shaped a nation if it had of been the same policies but in place by a male PM ?

    OR could you not sperate the two?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 693 ✭✭✭The Beer Baron


    hmmm would you feel as vehemently towards what she achieved and the policies with which she shaped a nation if it had of been the same policies but in place by a male PM ?

    my answer?
    Georgina W Bush.

    What a horrible woman/leader she was.

    And for what? For a few farmers and a flock of penguins, and
    to secure another term of office for that Margaret Thatcher.
    - a rare piece of intelligent political commentary from Bottom.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    :rolleyes: (recycle bin becones methinks...)

    Mike.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 93,582 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Mrs T

    The first PM to benefit from the NHS / Public education and has done the most damage to it upto then

    Allowed North Sea Oil to cause high inflation - result Her + cronies made fortunes on savings + british manufacturing industry wiped - £750bn wasted - if Scotland had been independent they would have a great country and England would still be the main manufacturing centre in Europe

    Falklands - except that there was a election coming this could have been settled peacefully - if the invasion had happened 3 months later they would have had two aircraft carriers less....

    Lots of fuss about how she would not be moved on europe - but they caved in behind the scenes

    redefining unemployment - now "job seakers" - only one of the 30 changes in the definition increased the numbers

    abolishing the poverty line - so no one is below it anymore..

    look at what happened to Northern England

    Also has made the Tories unelectable for at least a Generation
    (they got fewer votes in every election that they were in power)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,219 ✭✭✭invincibleirish


    hmmm would you feel as vehemently towards what she achieved and the policies with which she shaped a nation if it had of been the same policies but in place by a male PM ?

    yes.attempting to turn this into a male v female thing is kinda petty to my mind.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    just that when male leaders are harsh they are not as percived as badly as a female leader taking the same action
    it does happen,

    so just curious :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Nothing to do with her being a woman. She managed to do her level best to turn Britain into a two-tier society and fostered a xenophobic mistrust amongst the people she was leading. Major was useless because he was inept, not because he was a man. Thatcher managed to ruin Britain because she was more interested in holding on to power in Westminster and Wandsworth than the welfare of the common joes, not because she was a woman.

    I'd like to think we're moving beyond both attacking a person just because of their sex and defending a person for the same pathetic reason.

    Monaterism was one of the worst things ever to happen to the island to the east of us. You can blame inept economists if you like instead (some Irish economists like Tony Leddin regard them as more culpable then her) but the bottom line was that she went along with it, embraced it and told everyone it would be the saviour of the country. She was dead wrong and people have been picking up the pieces since. She made the decision to surround herself with idiot bullies like Tebbitt that were never going to be a threat to her and she bears responsibility for the decisions they made that she authorised. People would have been better off if she'd stuck to taking over her father's grocery shop.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,120 ✭✭✭PH01


    Originally posted by The Corinthian
    *Fap*

    *Fap*

    *Fap*

    Over Mrs. T?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 465 ✭✭bloggs


    She was a union buster, so she wasn't all bad ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭ReefBreak


    Originally posted by bloggs
    She was a union buster, so she wasn't all bad ;)
    Agreed - the UK industry was a disaster before she came along, 3 days weeks, stopages and strikes every other day before she came along. She took on the overpowerful Unions and won. The UK is now one the world's top economies.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 327 ✭✭Turnip


    She did some good things (curbed union power, promoted private enterprise, privatised steel, gas and telecoms, freed the Falklands) and some bad things (mismanagement of the hunger strikes, poll tax, poor attitude to europe, and didn't know when to quit which wrecked the conservative party).

    Not sure if curbing local government power was a good things or not.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    I could never say I was a fan as such. But my God, she was needed at the time. Red Robbo and his friends would have had
    the UK on its knees to the World Bank and Moscow.

    Mike.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,411 ✭✭✭shotamoose


    Originally posted by Turnip
    She did some good things (curbed union power, promoted private enterprise, privatised steel, gas and telecoms, freed the Falklands) and some bad things (mismanagement of the hunger strikes, poll tax, poor attitude to europe, and didn't know when to quit which wrecked the conservative party).

    Not sure if curbing local government power was a good things or not.

    Hey don't forget the big increases in poverty, unemployment and inequality, oh and wrecking public services too.
    Originally posted by Mike65
    Red Robbo and his friends would have had the UK on its knees to the World Bank and Moscow

    Maybe I'm ignorant, but who was Red Robbo?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 327 ✭✭Turnip


    Originally posted by shotamoose
    Hey don't forget the big increases in poverty, unemployment and inequality, oh and wrecking public services too.
    What would you have done to bring inflation (13% I think in 1979) down?

    I think the Red Robbomike65 refers to is Derek Robinson, a union nutter who organised hundreds of strikes at british leyland.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 93,582 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    RE: the UK industry was a disaster before she came along, 3 days weeks, stopages and strikes every other day before she came along. She took on the overpowerful Unions and won. The UK is now one the world's top economies.

    eh? - She beat the unions by more or less making all thier members unemployed. Most of the growth has been in non-union services, and we here know all about service industries moving offshore very quickly.... Heavy industry can't relocate that easily.

    BTW: most of the loss making mines closed, saved less money than was later paid out in increased dole... - so political or incompetance.

    Depending on how you look at the stats (and what day it is) Italy is a bigger economy than UK - that would have been unthinkable back then.

    Bringing inflation down - read my previous post - it would not have helped thier investments - but it killed off the north of england. ever watched "Boy from the black stuff" - Yosser Hughes etc.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Thatcher did'nt invent high unemployment, rather the policies that were required to reform the industrial base of the UK meant
    many jobs were destined to go. The British ecomony had been living a lie for a generation. So old industry was swept away, unemployment rocketed and then as the new replaced the old, unemployment fell. Its got the lowest unemployment rate of any
    major economy. One could have discusion regarding the move from blue-collar to white collar prosperity but all devoloped economies have less grit under thier fingernails....

    As for Italy haveing a bigger ecomoney that may be so (depending what day you measure as you say) but so what?. Italy is allowed to grow too! (BTW I would'nt trust the Italian figures much!)

    Mike.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Originally posted by mike65
    BTW I would'nt trust the Italian figures much!
    Why not? He didn't even tell you where his stats came from.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,411 ✭✭✭shotamoose


    Originally posted by Turnip
    What would you have done to bring inflation (13% I think in 1979) down?

    I think the Red Robbomike65 refers to is Derek Robinson, a union nutter who organised hundreds of strikes at british leyland.

    Why do you think inflation is more important than employment, poverty, inequality and public services? Why would anyone, unless you were a banker? Thatcher seemed to go out of her way to ruin millions of lives as part of some quasi-religious crusade, far and above whatever might have been 'necessary' to adjust the economy. Britain is still recovering from the excesses of her reign.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Originally posted by shotamoose
    Why do you think inflation is more important than employment, poverty, inequality and public services? Why would anyone, unless you were a banker? Thatcher seemed to go out of her way to ruin millions of lives as part of some quasi-religious crusade, far and above whatever might have been 'necessary' to adjust the economy. Britain is still recovering from the excesses of her reign.

    Inflation is the biggest jobs killer. Costs rise business becomes less competitive and unemployment follows. Why do you think every, EVERY, government frets about inflation and interest rates?

    Mike.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,411 ✭✭✭shotamoose


    Originally posted by mike65
    Inflation is the biggest jobs killer. Costs rise business becomes less competitive and unemployment follows. Why do you think every, EVERY, government frets about inflation and interest rates?

    Mike.

    Inflation is important, because too much of it causes unemployment and poverty. Thatcher switched the means with the ends and made inflation the be-all and end-all, so that employment and economic security suffered. It was a completely backwards way to go about economic policy, and it benefitted bankers more than anyone. The same 'philosophy' has been applied to the Third World for the last two decades by the bankers representatives at the International Monetary Fund, with similarly disastrous results.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Originally posted by shotamoose
    Thatcher switched the means with the ends and made inflation the be-all and end-all, so that employment and economic security suffered. It was a completely backwards way to go about economic policy, and it benefitted bankers more than anyone.
    Damn straight.

    And that's why we can criticise monetarism as being complete unworkable bunkum and should criticise Thatcher for falling for it. Milton Friedman was always sure that inflation could be totally controlled by limiting the money supply. He was proved wrong when people eventually figured out that the money supply was suitable as a policy target if and only if the relationship between money and nominal GDP (and obviously, hence, inflation) is stable and predictable. Certainly in the early 80s it was not. As a matter of fact, it rarely is and that's why monetarist philosophy is useful only in a closed and perfect economy (and only slightly useful then - as shotamoose implies, monetarism totally ignores the principle of well-being). Britain hasn't been either in over 200 years, if even then.

    The minute the velocity of circulation of money changes, monetarism is useless. It was an incredibly clever theory but not one that was actually very useful in practice. It's founded on the principle that sustained money growth in excess of the growth of output produces inflation and to end inflation or produce deflation, money growth must fall below the growth of output. This is essentially all that monetarism has to offer. It sounds good and Friedman was quite good at presenting it. He was wrong and unfortunately viewed his Nobel prize as an indication that the world thought he was right. Thatcher fell for that one too.

    Friedman even had to change the definition of money to make monetarism work on paper. Most normal economists regard "money" as cash in circulation and its close equivalents. Friedman went off and included hard to reach money in the equation. If you can't get at it easily it shouldn't be in the equation in the first place. If the thesis was changed to include a more useful definition of money, monetarism would be a little more useful but it's still about as useful in practice as communism where resources are (relatively) scarce and people are (relatively) greedy - it falls foul of the nature of man when dealing with the market.

    Keynes was wrong when he said that money doesn't matter. Friedman was wrong when he said that nothing else matters.

    Nicholas Kaldor warned everyone in 1981 about the ill effects that monetarism would have. Hardly anyone listened until a few years had passed. This is a nice introduction as to why monetarism is (as I said above) complete bunkum. It looks at the implementation and failure of monetarism in the US and UK so it's worth at least a cursory glance.

    Shockingly in 1970 (Counter-Revolution in Monetary Theory, the new testament of the economist antichrists:D), Friedman decided that Keynes would have been in favour of monetarism and managed to toss in "if Keynes were alive today, he would no doubt be at the forefront of the counter-revolution" even though monetarism is founded on the principle of Keynesian economics being incorrect. I'm still quite appalled by that, so much so that I memorised the quote. It's equivalent to Yasser Arafat saying that Golda Meir would be on the side of the Palestinians if she were still alive or that a turkey would vote for Christmas if only it could understand it.

    I know it might seem as if I'm just attacking Friedman for the sake it it (the evils of monetarism is admittedly one of my favourite soapboxes). It was the staypin of economic policy in Thatcher's Britain up to 1986 though and the problems associated with it lasted at least until 1992. You can't examine Thatcher's Britain without placing the failure of monetarist policies at the centre of that examination. Her policies were a failure. Her Britain was a failure. One would have thought that, given Thatcher's special friendship with Pinochet, she'd have recognised what the excesses of the Chicago school and monetarism in particular had done to Chile's economy. Missed that one too. The woman was blind to failure if it didn't suit her to notice it.

    (hmmm, made it all the way to the end without castigating the PDs for being the last remaining supporters of the Church of laissez-faire Friedman)


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,768 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    my 2c, bad thing, good king.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 327 ✭✭Turnip


    Originally posted by shotamoose
    Why do you think inflation is more important than employment, poverty, inequality and public services? Why would anyone, unless you were a banker? Thatcher seemed to go out of her way to ruin millions of lives as part of some quasi-religious crusade, far and above whatever might have been 'necessary' to adjust the economy. Britain is still recovering from the excesses of her reign.
    The place was a shambles. Hard choices had to be made. Ruined lives? Nobody starved did they? The unions were waging war against the government and making Britain as uncompetitive as possible. Contrast their policies with those of German unions who worked with the government to improve the economy overall. We need someone wth the sheer nerve of Thatcher here. I'm not so sure anymore that anyone in the PD's can do the business though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,956 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    I done a project on the Hunger Strikers in the H block during Thatcher's time and I came to one conclusion:

    Bitch

    and My current gf who is english agrees.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭ReefBreak


    Originally posted by irish1
    I done a project on the Hunger Strikers in the H block during Thatcher's time and I came to one conclusion:

    Bitch

    and My current gf who is english agrees.
    There is no doubt that Thatcher and the Hunger Strikers created a new batch of volunteers, sorry, murderers for the IRA. However, whatever about their "martyr" status, my sympathy for them is zero. At the time, she did what I would have probably done: treated them as murderous criminals rather than "political prisoners".


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 93,582 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    RE: Ruined lives? Nobody starved did they?

    Look at the numbers of people who were taken off unemployment - look at the suicide rate in North East of England...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,099 ✭✭✭✭WhiteWashMan


    capt midnight, i fail to see where your points are.
    you have put together a list of things, and some of them arent even accurate.

    you have given a choice here, so why dont you tell us, aloing with your correct and accurate reasons for thinking she is evil, or why you think she is misunderstood?


    by the way, have you recently done some study on conservative england of the 70's and 80's or something.

    just one thing, if you went into your education of the unions and the way that thatcher undermined (no pun intended) and beat the unions, and perticularly the miners unions of england and wales, you would see that tory party of the time had a brilliant stratagy. i wont say margaret thatcher did, because she was just the head of the government, and one perosn is not entirely accountabale for a governements administration.

    by the way, in what way was she evil?
    did she torture small defenceless animals or something?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 327 ✭✭Turnip


    Originally posted by ReefBreak
    There is no doubt that Thatcher and the Hunger Strikers created a new batch of volunteers, sorry, murderers for the IRA. However, whatever about their "martyr" status, my sympathy for them is zero. At the time, she did what I would have probably done: treated them as murderous criminals rather than "political prisoners".
    It's a good thing you'll never have have any position of responsibility then. If you had done the same then you would have been directly responsible for more deaths as the conflict dragged on. The IRA (and the loyalist scum who were far worse imo) should have been given the status they wanted. It would have been a small price to pay to sap popular support.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 1,735 Mod ✭✭✭✭star gazer


    She was a woman in a man's world and so had to compensate by being that little bit more extreme in her policies


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 465 ✭✭bloggs


    Originally posted by ReefBreak
    There is no doubt that Thatcher and the Hunger Strikers created a new batch of volunteers, sorry, murderers for the IRA. However, whatever about their "martyr" status, my sympathy for them is zero. At the time, she did what I would have probably done: treated them as murderous criminals rather than "political prisoners".

    I see the Bush Regime/Fox News rubbish has found a good home. I guess this is what you can expect from someone who supports a country (the US) who only supports terrorsts on it's own agenda (Israel, Iraq, Afganistan etc)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    Originally posted by ReefBreak
    At the time, she did what I would have probably done: treated them as murderous criminals rather than "political prisoners".

    That thinking would have went down well with P.W. Botha.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭Vader


    There is no doubt that Thatcher and the Hunger Strikers created a new batch of volunteers, sorry, murderers for the IRA. However, whatever about their "martyr" status, my sympathy for them is zero. At the time, she did what I would have probably done: treated them as murderous criminals rather than "political prisoners".
    Wether you call them murderers or volunteers is your own opinion so im not going to go on about that, but would you really let people die rather than give them their correct status. Terrorists, union workers, protesters, soldiers and war criminals are all political prisoners. She even aknowlaged this at one stage and said they could have civilian clothes, but them she gave them all the same civilian cloths so its still a uniform! Lying Bitch!
    Then she adopted a Paisley like attitude on excluding Irish officials from all goings on.

    It was her not an inch policy on the north, the whole up the empire, down the proles thing that really deserves the title QUEEN BITCH!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 465 ✭✭bloggs


    Originally posted by Vader
    Wether you call them murderers or volunteers is your own opinion so im not going to go on about that, but would you really let people die rather than give them their correct status. Terrorists, union workers, protesters, soldiers and war criminals are all political prisoners. She even aknowlaged this at one stage and said they could have civilian clothes, but them she gave them all the same civilian cloths so its still a uniform! Lying Bitch!
    Then she adopted a Paisley like attitude on excluding Irish officials from all goings on.

    It was her not an inch policy on the north, the whole up the empire, down the proles thing that really deserves the title QUEEN BITCH!

    I detested her 6 counties policy, but her Economic/Social policy in the UK was pretty good.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 93,582 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
    capt midnight, i fail to see where your points are.
    you have put together a list of things, and some of them arent even accurate.
    Which ones aren't

    you have given a choice here, so why dont you tell us, aloing with your correct and accurate reasons for thinking she is evil, or why you think she is misunderstood? [/QUOTE] Considering that I hold her responsible for a lot of deaths, the wiping out of UK manufacturing industry, fudging the figures on unemployment to try to cover up what was happening , double standards (eg: supporting Solidarity in Poland)


    by the way, have you recently done some study on conservative england of the 70's and 80's or something. [/QUOTE]In Dublin we've had UK TV in the 70's and 80's so kinda hard not to pick up on what was going on at the time.

    just one thing, if you went into your education of the unions and the way that thatcher undermined (no pun intended) and beat the unions, and perticularly the miners unions of england and wales, you would see that tory party of the time had a brilliant stratagy. i wont say margaret thatcher did, because she was just the head of the government, and one perosn is not entirely accountabale for a governements administration. [/QUOTE] The unions shot themselves in the foot, there was 18 months of coal stockpilled when they started the strike - also in many cases the "cost saving" measures of pit closures cost more because they didn't take into account the cost of Dole to be paid out to people many of whom would never get a job again.

    by the way, in what way was she evil?
    did she torture small defenceless animals or something?
    [/QUOTE] What good did she do for the poor, needy, those depending on the NHS, those on long term unemployment , students on grants, Scotland, Wales, North of England ?

    A right Pandora, but hope-less

    "Magret Thatcher, milk snatcher"

    Ok then - Vandalism dipped a bit during the Falklands war.


    /RANT


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,882 ✭✭✭Mighty_Mouse


    There is no doubt that Thatcher and the Hunger Strikers created a new batch of volunteers, sorry, murderers for the IRA. However, whatever about their "martyr" status, my sympathy for them is zero. At the time, she did what I would have probably done: treated them as murderous criminals rather than "political prisoners".

    Not that you would ever let you bias cloud your rationality Reefbreak, but do you not believe in basic human rights? You dont have a problem with MT letting republican prisoners starve to death?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
    but do you not believe in basic human rights? You dont have a problem with MT letting republican prisoners starve to death?

    Sorry, but when someone chooses starve themselves to death, you are denying no human right by allowing them to do so.

    I mean, lets face it MM. Had they been restrained and force-fed, you'd probably be here complaining about how their human rights and wishes were ignored, and how the British government had no right to do that to people who were voluntarily choosing to starve themselves as a form of protest.

    jc


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,882 ✭✭✭Mighty_Mouse


    Do you believe IRA prisoners should be recognised as political prisoners of war?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Sceptre's Law:
    "As a boards.ie politics discussion grows longer, the probability of a thread turning into a discussion about Sinn Fein and/or the IRA approaches one."

    Corollary 1: The discussion will degenerate into repetition within twenty posts.

    Corollary 2: Most of the sane people won't bother even reading the thread after that.


    I'll summarise the next twenty posts right now:
    "IRA prisoners are prisoners of war"
    "No they're not"
    "Yes they are"
    "What's with the ceasefire", snigger
    "What do you mean?"
    "What's with the punishment beatings"
    "They're not sanctioned and anyway they're justified and needed while the PSNI is a sectarian force"
    "The IRA are murderers"
    "Justified losses"
    "Scum"
    "Nope"
    "I'm from the North and I think...."
    "Well..."
    Thread loses whatever coherency it might have dreamt of having.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,924 ✭✭✭✭BuffyBot


    Do you believe IRA prisoners should be recognised as political prisoners of war?[

    That doesn't really have anything to do with the voluntary choice they made though does it?


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
    Do you believe IRA prisoners should be recognised as political prisoners of war?
    Well technically if you are talking only about prisoners of war,one has to ask was there a war, what government declared it ?
    And were the prisoners members of the army of any country?
    Answer to the first question is none.
    And the answer to the second question is No.
    So in that respect the answer to your question has to be no, in my humble opinion.

    The title of political prisoners of war implies a right to be at war[read terrorism] if you cannot have your political ideals implimented by democratic means.
    After all , there would otherwise be no need for the war[read terrorism]
    That would mean to be strict about it, any political ideal.
    To allow that would be a tad undemocratic don't you think, given that the vast majority of the Irish people north and south [assuming you would agree that unionists are also Irish whether they like it or not] did not use guns and bombs to further their politics.

    If however the army of the democratically elected government of the Republic of Ireland, entered the six counties and took over a few police stations etc and were subsequently captured and put to prison, yes these would/should have prisoner of war status assuming we declared war on the United Kingdom of Gt Britain and Northern Ireland.

    Mind you our government would be receiving a letter from the UNSC as we would have broken it's charter assuming the U.S* didn't threaten to vetoe any UK resolution on this :D

    *This being an election year, the U.S might threaten to vetoe any resolution in panderance to the Irish vote :p


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,406 ✭✭✭arcadegame2004


    I feel that Thatcher has been misunderstood to soem extent. I strongly admire the speed at which she privatised those inefficient state-owned, strike-ridden companies, and allowed ordinary people to decide which companies they acquire their services from in a whole new range of areas. It puts our own government's progress in this area to shame.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Give whoever dredged this up from the murky depths a big boards slap! That would be quarson then (feckin' newbies!)

    Mike.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,956 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    let it go people, let it go:D





    oh by the way do, she was a bitch ;)


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 93,582 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Originally posted by arcadegame2004
    I feel that Thatcher has been misunderstood to soem extent. I strongly admire the speed at which she privatised those inefficient state-owned, strike-ridden companies, and allowed ordinary people to decide which companies they acquire their services from in a whole new range of areas. It puts our own government's progress in this area to shame.
    Essential services are Essential. This is why they should not be sold off to asset strippers. Things like having a water meter put on - if you can't afford to put the coins in you have no water, great improvement on the previous state owned system. British Leyland were handed to Rolls Royce and then sold off as soon as respectiably - because they wern't allowed give grants to RR. (just an example of the fate of some companies an customers). Don't forget we built Ballymun when other countries were starting to demolish tower blocks.

    Yeah it's so much better without BritishRail - services have improved and it's so much safer - and there is no longer the overhead of R&D into improvements..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,406 ✭✭✭arcadegame2004


    Capt'n Midnight, I agree that "essential services are essential". However, surely that reinforces my argument that they should not be strike-ridden. Surely you are not denying that state-owned companies are far more likely to be strike-ridden, by trade-unions that take advantage of the usual monopolistic status of these companies to hold the country to ransom if they don't get their way?

    I agree that the privatisation of British Rail didn't go well. However, I think in a way the railways are a special case, since you are hardly going to be building ten different railway lines to the same location to introduce competition. In this sector it may not work. But in most in does, e.g. Eircom call-charges down 17% after privatisation. On the point you made about water-charges, I feel that the privatisation of the water-industry in Britain was not done right. By which I mean that the private-sector firms were all monopolies in their respective areas. Privatisation should be done in such a way as to increase competition. No monopoly, state-owned or private, can be a good thing.

    May I point out that because state-owned companies have mindset of dependency on state-funds, that they actually have less incentive to spend tha money wisely, as they can always run to the Government for more money in the future. May I add that appointees to the boards of semi-states tend to be political cronies of the ruling party(s) and that hardly adds up to appointment on the basis of merit. Positions on the boards of semi-states are never advertised and I have no confidence in the ability of party-hacks to efficiently spend our taxes and run our essential services.

    I personally think it's more democratic to allow us, the citizen, to decide for ourselves which company provides our electricity, telephone service, and most other areas of services, than having one strike-ridden monopoly imposed on us. All monopolies abuse their dominant market position to raise prices, knowing that the consumer has no choice but to fork out. And I think Thatcher, while she may have made some mistakes, paved the way for a more democratic society in so far as she allowed people to decide for themselves which companies people got their services from. Notice how rare strikes are in the UK too, now that the shop-floor bullyboys can hold their country to ransom no more. Puts the timidity of our government's privatisation program into perspective.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,882 ✭✭✭Mighty_Mouse


    What Sceptre said ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,406 ✭✭✭arcadegame2004


    Capt'n Midnight, another point I would make is that seemingly "free" semi-state services are not actually free when you take account of the fact that the taxpayer subsidises them. Its conceivable that paying charges to a privatised company could actually leave the consumer better off paying that way that by payment via taxes.


Advertisement