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

Britain needs a Thatcher

  • 21-02-2010 3:15pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭


    Prime Minister of Broken Britain, Gordon Brown, says that the need to cut their budget deficit is a "myth".
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/labour-mps-expenses/7271441/Gordon-Brown-Prime-Minister-says-need-to-cut-spending-a-myth.html

    Alot economists seem to agree with him aswell. Broken Britain is a real madhouse they are running Greek style deficits and their premier minister says there is no need to cut this deficits.

    Margaret Thatcher is a woman I believe saved Britain, for a while. She managed to get the budget in control and the economy picked up. Labour has turned a once prosperous country into a place that is known as Broken Britain.

    Britain badly needs a person like Margareth Thatcher to save it.


«13456

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,729 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    attachment.php?attachmentid=105784&stc=1&d=1266768515

    Broken Britain? Can't you make your point without resorting to buzzwords?

    Im reluctant to agree with both Brown and Mr. Obama of the United States. While a National Deficit is a demoralizing presence, I think it would pale in comparison to a sudden halt in billions of pounds worth of spending. We'd spend the next year finding another New Bottom.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    I have seen what Britain looks like, I have been there. Broken Britain is exactly the right "buzzword" to use.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,169 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Overheal wrote: »
    I think it would pale in comparison to a sudden halt in billions of pounds worth of spending. We'd spend the next year finding another New Bottom.
    Yes, but what would happen after that?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,271 ✭✭✭kev9100


    SLUSK wrote: »
    Britain badly needs a person like Margareth Thatcher to save it.


    No, Britain does not need someone like Margaret Thatcher.

    My father grew up in 1970's and 80's Britain and trust me, it was not a happy time. During her time as PM, Thatcher launched the most viscouis type of class warfare ever seen in Britain. Unemployment benefits were slashed and she decimated whole rural communities with the closure of the mines and she revelled in it. Thatcher constantly talked about getting Britain back on its feet, but all she did was make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

    When Thatcher finally dies, every single working-class man and woman who remembers her premiership will be dancing on her grave.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    So running a deficit until you get an Argentina style default or rampant inflation is preferable?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,008 ✭✭✭The Raven.


    kev9100 wrote: »
    No, Britain does not need someone like Margaret Thatcher.

    My father grew up in 1970's and 80's Britain and trust me, it was not a happy time. During her time as PM, Thatcher launched the most viscouis type of class warfare ever seen in Britain. Unemployment benefits were slashed and she decimated whole rural communities with the closure of the mines and she revelled in it. Thatcher constantly talked about getting Britain back on its feet, but all she did was make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

    I was there too and it was every bit as bad as you say. She destroyed so much.
    When Thatcher finally dies, every single working-class man and woman who remembers her premiership will be dancing on her grave.

    Including Elvis Costello!



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    So what should be done if you are not willing to cut the deficits? Do you think the creditors will let Britain go on like this forever?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Out of interest SLUSK, what is Britain's level of borrowing, in monetary terms and as a percentage of GDP and how does that compare with France, Italy and, as you mentioned them, Greece and Argentina?

    Read what Steph has to say on the whole thing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/02/greek_britain.html


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    The article I linked in my post says the following
    Government spending is on course to exceed tax revenues by more than £170 billion this year. That is more than 12 per cent of gross domestic product, comparable to the deficit that has left Greece facing a financial crisis.

    Yet many people think that Britain should keep increasing the deficits and deal with it later. Well later will quite likely be to late.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,575 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    SLUSK wrote: »
    I have seen what Britain looks like, I have been there. Broken Britain is exactly the right "buzzword" to use.

    Where have you been to? what does 'broken' actually mean?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


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


    I suspect this thread will just end up a Bash Thatch thread if allowed too. (hint).

    The the mid/late 70s the UK was going down the pan, the IMF's phone number was on redial, the unions has wrecked the countries manufacturing base and the NF were on the march. The Tories under Thatcher ended all that and turned the entire economy around through harsh medicine its true but if the Castor oil had not been administered where would all the Irish have gone in the 80s? ;)

    Ireland needs a Thatcher type.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,008 ✭✭✭The Raven.


    This post has been deleted.

    The trade unions were very much needed to protect the workers from unscrupulous employers. They were not the ‘perverse’ organizations that you feel compelled to describe them as.

    England was a great place to live in the sixties. People became more liberated. Business was booming, notably the fashion and music industry, and the arts. There was great enthusiasm and people were happy generally. Then Thatcher came along and all smiles stopped together. Small businesses closed down one after the other and the inevitable suicides occurred, mostly young men. It developed into an era of high unemployment and social anxiety. I passed young traumatised soldiers in the street with serious injuries when they came back from the Falklands, a sight so shocking that I will never forget.

    That was my experience. Were you in England in the 70s and 80s? Did you actually live under the Thatcher government?
    Do you really have to post that same hate-filled Costello video every time anyone mentions Margaret Thatcher?!

    That is a bit of an exaggeration :rolleyes:! I do believe I posted it once before, quite some time ago. Correct me if I’m wrong. This is just a reminder of the effect she had on people. If it’s ‘hate-filled’ there is only one person to blame.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,008 ✭✭✭The Raven.


    mike65 wrote: »
    I suspect this thread will just end up a Bash Thatch thread if allowed too. (hint).

    Ahem! I think we are allowed to have a different opinion of the lady :rolleyes:!
    Ireland needs a Thatcher type.

    Like a hole in the head! Anyway, we have a few of those already. Thatcher's influence still lingers: Harney, Hanafin, Coughlan...:eek::eek::eek:!!!


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


    They are not fit to wipe down the old dears handbag, Hanafin and Coughlan are intellectual/ideological pygmies.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    The Raven. wrote: »
    The trade unions were very much needed to protect the workers from unscrupulous employers. They were not the ‘perverse’ organizations that you feel compelled to describe them as.

    England was a great place to live in the sixties. People became more liberated. Business was booming, notably the fashion and music industry, and the arts. There was great enthusiasm and people were happy generally. Then Thatcher came along and all smiles stopped together. Small businesses closed down one after the other and the inevitable suicides occurred, mostly young men. It developed into an era of high unemployment and social anxiety. I passed young traumatised soldiers in the street with serious injuries when they came back from the Falklands, a sight so shocking that I will never forget.

    That was my experience. Were you in England in the 70s and 80s? Did you actually live under the Thatcher government?



    That is a bit of an exaggeration :rolleyes:! I do believe I posted it once before, quite some time ago. Correct me if I’m wrong. This is just a reminder of the effect she had on people. If it’s ‘hate-filled’ there is only one person to blame.

    yes I did.

    It was a very very hard time, but when I see the way the unions are intent on driving Ireland into the ground, I would certainly say Ireland needs a dose of Thatcherism.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 776 ✭✭✭creeper1


    How can any Irish man say something supportive of this woman? Does the memory of the hunger strickers and her blatant stubborn attitude not to recognise their POW status fade so easily?

    Look the UK is finished. Simple as that. Remember their "exit" of recession? 0.1%! Ha Ha! Laughable! The sums just don't add up. Barring discovery of Falkland oil, they are well on their way to becoming third world and I for one won't shed one tear for them. :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,008 ✭✭✭The Raven.


    mike65 wrote: »
    They are not fit to wipe down the old dears handbag, Hanafin and Coughlan are intellectual/ideological pygmies.

    LOL :D! Give them time! On second thoughts don't!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 725 ✭✭✭rightwingdub


    Ireland severely needs a radical dosage of free market economics, ie privatisation, cut taxes, cut social welfare, cut the number of people employed in the public sector, cut public sector pay even further. Finally anyone who works in the public sector should be forbidden by law to go on strike.

    Regards Britain, I don't think Cameron is a Thatcher type figure, Cameron is a centrist Tory pre thatcher politician when the centrist wing of the tories were the dominant sector, a lot of right wing tories actually dislike Cameron after all apparently one time he described himself as "the heir to Blair" when having dinner with a number of newspaper editors.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,008 ✭✭✭The Raven.


    yes I did.

    It was a very very hard time, but when I see the way the unions are intent on driving Ireland into the ground, I would certainly say Ireland needs a dose of Thatcherism.

    Fred, you're a glutton for punishment! It's not Thatcherism that's needed. It's a level headed government that treats people fairly. We need a leader with intelligence and good communication skills, instead of a crusty old fellow who speaks down to people!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    The Raven. wrote: »
    Fred, you're a glutton for punishment! It's not Thatcherism that's needed. It's a level headed government that treats people fairly. We need a leader with intelligence and good communication skills, instead of a crusty old fellow who speaks down to people!
    How do you think treating people 'fairly' would help the economy? Do you mean we should give in to the trade union's demands, would that be fair? Should we tax the rich further, is that also 'fair'? Given your stance on Margaret Thatcher it's safe to assume your 'fair' politics will only bankrupt the country even more.

    What do you have to say about the dismal economic conditions of England in the 70s and how Thatcher's government greatly improved them?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,608 ✭✭✭themont85


    The Raven. wrote: »
    Fred, you're a glutton for punishment! It's not Thatcherism that's needed. It's a level headed government that treats people fairly. We need a leader with intelligence and good communication skills, instead of a crusty old fellow who speaks down to people!

    Fairness as a concept is great, but is 9/10 empty rhetoric from vote buying politicians.

    George Bush was actually quite an intelligent guy and somebody who's communication skills won him plenty of votes to win two elections in the face of pretty big obstacles. Doesn't mean he was a good President, made smart decisions or didn't make an arse of himself on plenty of occasions.

    Thatcher was a lot of things. She was lucky with the Fawklands and Oil. Her policies were repugnant to large sections of Britains who grew up in the welfare state. But at least she never bull****ed around with what she did. Disarming the unions was her most enduring achievement as a prime minister.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,885 ✭✭✭PomBear


    Thatcher was a disgusting politician and a discuting human being. IMO. the IRA had every right to attack her as any British, Irish (from the 6 counties) or Argentinian would have. In terms of her defense she was a prime minister like Blair who will live forever with blood on her hands.
    Her far right neo liberal economics lead to the working class taking a nose dive and taking years to recover. People suffered so badly so did Education, Health, Jobs, everything the government could handle. I fear the worst if Tories get in, same goes for Fine Gael here. I might as well add I grew up in Thatcher's Britain


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Why Argentinian?

    What did she do to the people of Argentina?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭Joey the lips





    I see the op is trolling for a row again... Makeing an arguement with no backup... I have no love for the women. I think she ruined the union movement and ultimatly the working class rights in "conservative" england. In fact I reckon she is more hated than the queen which says a lot....


    What with Thatchers 80th birthday it seemed as good a time as ever to dig out this old article about why I hate her so much.

    20 REASONS WHY I HATE THATCHER

    1. As Education secretary under Edward Heath in a foretaste of what is to come, stops free milk for school children. No chance of the widely praised 'free fruit' scheme ever being Tory policy! She later deregulates school meals so all they have on the menu is burger and chips! The health of the nation was not something Thatcher thought any of her concern.

    2. Shamelessly uses the 'race card' to get elected PM in 1979! (Though I wont claim her to be the first Tory leader to use this and certainly not the last!) "We are being flooded!" she asserts despite figures showing emigration higher than immigration and immigration at its lowest post-war level. Her idols are Keith Joseph (who ruined his own chance of being leader with a demon eyed rant on TV about sterilising the poor (I jest not!!)) and Enoch Powell (the 'intellectual' racist). She promotes Keith 'Eugenics' Joseph to Education Minister!

    3. Monetarism! Disastrous policy of trying to control money supply. In the first of her two recessions (the worst since the 1930's), one fifth of our industrial base is wiped out and unemployment is more than doubled, there are summer riots in every inner-city in the country. Not bad for her first 2 years in office! In the first of many U-turns (see point on 'myth of strong leader'), she abandons monetarism. Polls predict Labour landslide and despite the resolute support of the press, she is the most unpopular PM on record. How could she possibly get out of this one?

    4. The Falklands! In a gross piece of incompetence (or was it deliberate?) fails to avert the Falklands crisis by ignoring intelligence on the Argentine preparation for invasion in early 1982. Indeed she seems to positively encourage it by proposing scrapping the only warship we have there and having her defence secretary Nicholas Ridley openly say we didn't want the Falklands, thereby giving the impression we are not bothered about the islands! In 1978 when faced with the same intelligence, the Labour government quietly averts a war through diplomatic channels by threatening to send a taskforce. It's the classic tale, to divert attention from disastrous economic policies at home a crooked leader engages in a foreign war (except I'm not talking about Galtieri!). Perhaps Thatcher was getting advise from some of the brutal dictatorships she helped prop up in South America, "Would you like some more tea Mr Pinochet?". Number of British soldiers killed, 278, Argentines, 3000+. Blood on her hands anyone?

    5. Destruction of local democracy. The beauty of not having a written constitution, having the backing of the press, having a massive majority in parliament (despite only getting 42% of the vote, less than 1 in 3 of the electorate) and having a permanent inbuilt Tory hereditory second chamber is that Tory PMs can do whatever they like. If you dont like local democracy because they vote for someone else, just abolish it like Thatcher did and centralise everything from Whitehall and unelected Quangos who you carefully select. (Yes, Thatcher invented Quasi Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisations.) The popular GLC was scrapped despite over 80% of Londoners being opposed. Londoners have to wait over 13 years before getting an assembly back and electing Livingstone as its leader once again.

    6. Politicising the civil service. See point about QUANGOs above. Also if you dont like what statistics the statistics office is publishing, make sure you stop them collecting the statistics and stop them publishing them. The figures that were published on individual wealth and earnings each year were abolished in this way. The Office for National Statistics like the Bank of England was made independent by this Labour government and yes they have started publishing the wealth and earnings figures again.

    7. Regressive Taxation. Under Thatcher VAT increased from 8% to 17.5% and was also levied on utility bills for the first time as well. What she gave the rich in income tax cuts she took from the poor in indirect taxation. The proportion of GDP spent by the government under Thatcher stayed fairly static at around 40%. The difference was that rather than spend it on the NHS, housing or education she spent the money on defence, a massive expansion of the civil service (see point 6), paying the huge unemployment bill, and rising police salaries to keep them loyal in the face of massive civil unrest. The best part of all was that she shifted the burden of payment for all this onto the poor from the rich.

    8. The widening gap between rich and poor. This might not be such a bad thing if the gap had not been so massive in the first place. How can the richest 50% owning 97% of the wealth be fair? This was her starting position she moved wealth almost exclusively to the richest 10% at the expense of the poorest 50%.

    9. Spend, spend, spend! Abolishing credit controls seemed such a good idea, the economy booms on a consumer spending bubble....cue second crippling recession. Thanks Margaret! Not to mention the misery caused to millions of people suckered into debts and negative equity! Spend, spend, spend also applied to government borrowing which despite claims of financial prudence increased massively under Thatcher to fund income tax cuts for the rich.

    10. Homelessness for the young. Why should homelessness be the preserve of ageing tramps who remember the 1930's. No! Thatcher thought the opportunities should be open to all. Young beggars on the streets were Thatcher's invention. The legacy of massive youth unemployment and crime no-go areas for the police are still being fought today. There is a whole generation of people where crime and welfare culture was their only way of surviving and it became their mindset.

    11. The Poll Tax! Regardless of how you view this in theory, apart from its regressive nature, it quite plainly was unworkable. They knew that it was going to be ridiculously expensive to collect, that there was overwhelming opposition to it (it ruined the 1991 census) and was going to mean massive non-payment and it was responsible for some of the worst rioting ever seen in central London but they pressed ahead anyway. Another U-turn inevitably came!

    12. The myth of the strong leader. This was a total invention of the press. Thatcher's only strength (if you could call it that) was that she had no principles at all! She was an anti-smoking campaigner who ended up on the payroll of British American Tobacco. She had to do a U-turn on her 'flagship' economic policy after 2 years because she had wrecked the economy (see point 3) (This was just one year after her famous speech in 1980 where she assured the party faithful she was going to stick to monetarist policies-"You turn if you want to...the lady's not for turning"-yeah right!!). The Poll Tax was a disaster which she had to U-turn on (but too late to save her from being stabbed in the back!). She went to Europe saying she was against federalism but signed its most federalist law (the Single European Act in 1986). She later claimed she was tricked on this. Did she even know what she was doing? Some strong leader that is! And to top it all off, even in departure she was weak. "I fight on, I fight to win" she said in her pompous way before quietly resigning hours later when confronted by Ministers like Geoffrey Howe!!! It was the final U-turn from a weak puppet leader whose only qualities (as far as the Tories were concerned) were she did what she was told.

    13. Degradation of the social professions. Social workers were virtually denounced as criminals! Teachers were so derided and there pay so eroded it barely survived as a profession and things like mental health, just loose them out on the streets, Thatcher's government didnt care what they did! You remember what the social workers in the baby P case said and continue to say about there workload

    14. Victorian Values. Yes before its Back to Basics successor under Major, Thatcher promised to take us back to Victorian morality and she nearly succeeded. We were not far away from child labour and seething slums of humanity and disease. I reckon Thatcher needed one more term for that!! She also took care to defend to the hilt her countless Ministers who were caught with their trousers down or hands in the till or both in some cases! Cecil Parkinson, Alan Clark, David Mellor, Jeffrey Archer (3 times), Jonathon Aitkin (twice)... etc. etc. the list goes on.

    15. "There is no such thing as society". Did Thatcher foresee the 'playstation' generation? Selfishness as a virtue seemed to sum up her warped sense of morality to me.

    16. Over-privatisation and overt corruption. Oh the beauty of it, a totally dominant monopoly privatised at a discount price to big business (lots of it foreign owned) so they can cream off profits to their hearts content. Who can do without Water, Gas, Electricity? We can charge what we like! Plus we get the bonus of nice jobs on more Quangos OfWat, OfGas, Of-with taxpayers cash we go. With Ministers interchanging between the boardrooms of the newly privatised companies and the regulating boards on massive salaries. Even husband and wife teams, remember Mr and Mrs Howe, one a consultant with a privatised firm, his wife the regulator. Anyone for insider dealing calls out Mrs Archer! Oh jolly good show! Even industries that plainly werent feasible for privatisation like bus and rail, go for it, it wont hurt. And what shall we do with the money my dear? Well my son Mark has shares in a nice defence firm! Rather, still some left over for a nice reduction in the top rate of income tax as well.

    17. Even public service broadcasting couldnt escape. Relentless bullying of the BBC was started by Thatcher, she took this to a new level with Tebbit and various other ministers calling it the Bolshevic Broadcasting Company because it failed to replicate Sun editorial lines in its news broadcasts. In one of her last acts she even managed to wreck Channel 4' s public service commitment by changing its funding situation from one of subscription from ITV who sold its advertising space to total dependence on advertising.

    18. The divisiveness of the North-South divide in wealth. Look at the political map and you can still see where the Conservatives win most of their seats in the South East because of this.

    19. Regular winter crises in the NHS became the norm. The Tories argued these were inevitable because we couldnt afford to fund the NHS properly. There are no winter crises anymore!

    20. Crime rates doubled under Thatcher. This is probably the most surprising statistic of the lot when you consider the Tories so called strong standing on law and order. It just goes to demonstrate why we need a history lesson about Thatcher and not the lies printed in the right wing owned press.


    Amazing I managed to dig out 20 reasons without pulling the republician card..... and they say republicians cannot see past the north ;)


    ps: These 20 reasons are from a published article i read once. I cannot for the life of me find the author but his opinion and contrabution is greatly reconised


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,182 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    This post has been deleted.

    note that he said the 60s, not 70s.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,531 ✭✭✭Taxipete29


    Why Argentinian?

    What did she do to the people of Argentina?

    Falklands????


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Good ol Maggie, always brings up debate.
    I agree with her about the Unions, they needed taking down a peg or 5 but a lot of what she did was opportunist horse manure that she spun around to make her look good. The damage she did in the north for example is definitely one of her failings.


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


    Why Argentinian?

    What did she do to the people of Argentina?

    Freed them from the meat packing business of Snr Leopoldo Galtieri? :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 261 ✭✭whynotwhycanti


    Lets not forget her blossoming and supportive relationship of the Chilean dictator Pinochet. i'm sure alot of Chileans have their own well founded opinion of Margaret Thatcher. I will remeber her as being responsible for one of the greatest re-distributions of wealth from the lower classes to the upper classes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    note that he said the 60s, not 70s.
    Well then, who are you blaming for the 70s? How did Thatcher ruin the 60s considering she wasn't pm until 1979?

    Re: school lunches; heaven forbid parents should make a healthy lunch for their own children before school. It doesn't take much effort to throw a sambo and some fruit into a lunch box. Has statism now become so ingrained that people now consider it one of the government's core duties to actually feed children?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    I will remeber her as being responsible for one of the greatest re-distributions of wealth from the lower classes to the upper classes.
    That doesn't make much sense to me; would you care to elaborate?

    Most of the criticism here is emotive rather than rational i.e. "I grew up in 80s Britain, I know how bad it was..." etc. It doesn't really hold any weight in terms of the economic recovery she initiated.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Taxipete29 wrote: »
    Falklands????

    Most Argentinans were against the onvasion of the Falkland Islands, besides they started it so any blame should rest on the shoulders of the Junta, not Maggie. I think there was 900 Argentinians killed during the falklands Joey, not 3000.

    I ****ing hated the woman, but I still think that her government changed the unions for the better. The only real militant union now is the Tube drivers.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 261 ✭✭whynotwhycanti


    Valmont wrote: »
    That doesn't make much sense to me; would you care to elaborate?

    Most of the criticism here is emotive rather than rational i.e. "I grew up in 80s Britain, I know how bad it was..." etc. It doesn't really hold any weight in terms of the economic recovery she initiated.

    Leave it with me and ill get you the figures, i read about her in a book by John Pilger, very interesting stuff, what a wonderful woman. Her brother Mark did pretty well from her own position. He's made a lot of money in the arms industry through her contacts. She was also involved in Britain selling arms to the dictatorship in Indonesia who were committing genocide with British weapons in East Timor. She banged on about self-determination for the Fauklanders as reason for that war but didn't seem to think that same right applied to the people of East Timor.

    I know that the atrocities that she was involved in are related more to her foreign policy than to do with her management of domestic issues but she was all for big business and not for individuals and not for the people. I always thought elected officials should represent the electorate who put them in that position, not big corporations but Thatcher was all about big business. She is a ghastly horrible woman who only represented the upper echelons of society which is surprising as she is from a humble background as the daughter of a butcher. I guess once she got a taste for wealth and success that was it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭Joey the lips


    Most Argentinans were against the onvasion of the Falkland Islands, besides they started it so any blame should rest on the shoulders of the Junta, not Maggie. I think there was 900 Argentinians killed during the falklands Joey, not 3000.

    I ****ing hated the woman, but I still think that her government changed the unions for the better. The only real militant union now is the Tube drivers.


    650 is the figure I found I disputed this figure as well when I read the article. I think its just a slip of the zero. That was the only real disagreement I had with the article


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 261 ✭✭whynotwhycanti


    Valmont wrote: »
    That doesn't make much sense to me; would you care to elaborate?

    Most of the criticism here is emotive rather than rational i.e. "I grew up in 80s Britain, I know how bad it was..." etc. It doesn't really hold any weight in terms of the economic recovery she initiated.

    Sorry if i went off topic on my ramblings of her exceptional foreign policy as i know that is not being discussed here but to take things back on track here is a reference from the book i read:

    The UN Human Development Report for 1997 says that in no other country has poverty 'increased as substantially' since the early 1980s, and that the number of Britons in 'income poverty' leapt by nearly 60 per cent under her Government.

    You may ask how is that a re-distriduation of wealth but just as poverty increased, wealth creation for the upper classses increased. Leave it with me and ill get you the reference for how as more people fell into poverty, the wealth of the upper classes increased. maybe it was pure coincidence

    I do believe that the unions needed a shake up but what she did was more than that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    but she was all for big business and not for individuals and not for the people
    Thatcher was all about the individual; her fundamental philosophy dictated this. Heck, she even bashed The Constitution of Liberty down on a table during a speech. She reduced income tax, privatised national industries and refused to fund failing businesses with state money. She also fought an ideological battle with the collectivism-oriented trade unions. Unfortunately for those reliant on the state, Thatcher's scaling back of the government meant that they no longer had a lifeline and those working in unprofitable mines lost their jobs. There was bound to be casualties if she was to fix the economy, and fix it she did.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭imme


    Should the thread title not be Britain needs a 'Thatcher' (a character like Margaret Thatcher in terms of slashing public service expenditure, selling off public utilities).

    Because they surely don't need the same Thatcher they had before. That was then, this is now. Anyway that poor aul wan must be about 85 and her memory is in bad shape.

    Why do so many threads on here seem to go straight into a downward spiral of argument. People are arguing about the merits and demerits of Margaret Thatcher. That's got nothing whatsoever got to do with the current economic situation in Britain or the question of the OP.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 261 ✭✭whynotwhycanti


    Valmont wrote: »
    refused to fund failing businesses with state money.

    She wouldn't have been very popular with the developers and bankers in Ireland so.

    I do agree with part of what you say but when she privatised a lot of the state companies, she privatised a lot of the states resources, i.e. gas, water. These belonged to every citizen as the publics wealth but were placed in the hands of the elite who could afford their acquisition, albeit to make them more profitable but most state companies aren't really profitable, they exist to serve a purpose not to maximize profits at all costs.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,729 ✭✭✭Pride Fighter


    This post has been deleted.

    People are happy when there is money in their pockets. The middle class in the south of England were happy to have her as they had good jobs and plenty of money. The south of England being the most populous area and having the most MP seats. The miners/steelworkers/manufacturers in areas like Yorkshire/Scotland and Wales did not have the population to elect enough non-Tories.

    I ask myself the same question about Fianna Fail 1997-now and I suppose the answer is the same, people with money and a job will try to keep the status quo.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭imme


    Valmont wrote: »
    Thatcher was all about the individual; her fundamental philosophy dictated this. Heck, she even bashed The Constitution of Liberty down on a table during a speech. She reduced income tax, privatised national industries and refused to fund failing businesses with state money. She also fought an ideological battle with the collectivism-oriented trade unions. Unfortunately for those reliant on the state, Thatcher's scaling back of the government meant that they no longer had a lifeline and those working in unprofitable mines lost their jobs. There was bound to be casualties if she was to fix the economy, and fix it she did.

    Why are you discussing Thatcher herself. I believe the OP is a proponent of a politician in the Thatcher mold.

    collectivism: are you mixing up the UK with the USSR?
    She didn't mind investing in DeLorean in NI?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    imme wrote: »
    collectivism: are you mixing up the UK with the USSR?
    Arthur Scargill was as virulent a collectivist as they come.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 261 ✭✭whynotwhycanti


    Valmont wrote: »
    Thatcher was all about the individual; her fundamental philosophy dictated this. Heck, she even bashed The Constitution of Liberty down on a table during a speech. She reduced income tax, privatised national industries and refused to fund failing businesses with state money. She also fought an ideological battle with the collectivism-oriented trade unions. Unfortunately for those reliant on the state, Thatcher's scaling back of the government meant that they no longer had a lifeline and those working in unprofitable mines lost their jobs. There was bound to be casualties if she was to fix the economy, and fix it she did.


    I do agree with parts of what you say but if i were a person who relied on the state or was a miner etc, would i have the same view of Thatcher. i think not, you said it yourself, she privatised state business and in doing so put a lot of people out of work and made them reliant on welfare, but at the same time cut back welfare even though her decisions made more people dependent on welfare. To you she saved the economy but to a lot of people, she left them in a terrible position that they still have not recovered from.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭imme


    Valmont wrote: »
    Arthur Scargill was as virulent a collectivist as they come.
    did he represent the union movement entire:confused:

    A collectivist, did he advocate the collectivisation of farming etc, what did he advocate the collectivisation of?

    The mines were state owned at the time of the strike you know.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    To you she saved the economy but to a lot of people, she left them in a terrible position that they still have not recovered from.
    I don't disagree with you on that point but if the miners thought that they could carry on at the expense of the taxpayer they were sorely wrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,182 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    This post has been deleted.

    well she did earn the moniker margaret thatcher milk snatcher back at the start of the 70s. Surely she stole the smiles from childrens faces, grinch that she was.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement