Maggie Thatcher death discussion thread - Mod rules in first post

true · 10-04-2013 12:17AM

K-9 wrote: »

She defeated the Unions and replaced it with what? Consumerism, property make over programmes and the Saachis loved her.

I do not remember "property make over programmes" during her reign of power in the late 70's and 1980's. Were they not more a thing of the noughties?

Consumerism....means people having a bit of money for workers to spend on things. Whats wrong with that? I think the whole western world, if not the whole world, has gone down the road of consumerism since the seventies. You cannot blame Thatcher for that. Come on, most of us - admit it - want a decent car, want a phone, want to buy a few luxuries now and again. And if you work hard you think you deserve a holiday or a meal out the odd time. Nothing wrong with that. I reckon it makes the world go around. I do not agree with over-consumerism. But you never saw Maggie flying the high life. Instead she worked very hard. No yachts or racehorses or lavish spending for that grocers daughter. No "Celtic Mist" or Inishvickilaun or mansion at Kinsealy or dishonesty sneaking off to Paris with a secret lover. No bragging at Inchydonny that "the boom got boomier". I remember hearing a story of frugality from a visitor to Checkers once - will not repeat it here.

Norwesterner · 10-04-2013 12:20AM

K-9 wrote: »

I already addressed that.

All addressed.

What is her legacy really though. She defeated the Unions and replaced it with what? Consumerism, property make over programmes and the Saachis loved her. Doesn't say much for all the adoration.

Come on ffs.
Is she to blame for the consumerism and make over programmes in Ireland, France, U.S as well?

Why didn't Labour revert her polices when they had 10 years to do it.
Why didn't they bring back free milk, re-open the pits, stop families in council estates from buying their own property (the previous Labour policy).
Why don't we get free milk in Irish schools? Thatcher?
Some people in power just blame her for taking the hard decisions with the comfortable conclusion that they don't have to.
But in secret they're (New Labour) glad she did.

wonderfullife · 10-04-2013 12:21AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

And society improved all over the west through those years, including here in Ireland (remember strikes here too?) without the absolute and unforgivable social divisiveness she caused. There are ways to achieve things, hers where obviously and tragically the wrong ways, if you open your eyes and look around you.

Her methods and timing were clearly questionable. She went for sweeping, quick changes without truly assessing the social impact of them. But the changes had to be made, no doubt about it.

She was re-elected twice. People can point to flakey opposition or her calling an early general election in 1987 to capitalise on her popularity. But she was still re-elected twice. Truly despised leaders (Brian Cowen for example) simply don't get 2 terms never mind 3.

Bottom line certain areas of society hated her and shouted the loudest about it but plenty of working class people did well out of her too.

Divisiveness in society is evident here and in the USA too. Not to the same extent but we never had 26.5% inflation and 98% income tax to contend with and overwhelmingly powerful trade unions.

Norwesterner · 10-04-2013 12:23AM

K-9 wrote: »

Blair will have his haters as well. I'd say Blair tried to bring society back to Thatcher's "there is no society" line. Working Families tax credits, stuff like that. While Blair didn't increase tax rates as far as I know, he did bring in stealth taxes. I worked in N.I. and I remember my boss castigating Labour and championing McCreevy cutting taxes everywhere here.

With hindsight, New Labour got it more right than FF/PD's did.

New Labour had a "I have it I spend it" attitude, much like Mc Creevy.
They also had a "if I don't have it, I'll borrow and then spend it" attitude.
Left the country in huge deficit, hence the cuts of today.
Blair and Brown almost bankrupted the country.

K-9 · 10-04-2013 12:27AM

true wrote: »

I do not remember "property make over programmes" during her reign of power in the late 70's and 1980's. Were they not more a thing of the noughties?

A natural progression of her love of property ownership, hated State intervention but loved the mortgage tax relief, despite reports and cabinet colleagues saying it was stupid. Wish Ireland had followed them, and not Thatcher.

Consumerism....means people having a bit of money for workers to spend on things. Whats wrong with that? I think the whole western world, if not the whole world, has gone down the road of consumerism since the seventies. You cannot blame Thatcher for that. Come on, most of us - admit it - want a decent car, want a phone, want to buy a few luxuries now and again. And if you work hard you think you deserve a holiday or a meal out the odd time. Nothing wrong with that. I reckon it makes the world go around. I do not agree with over-consumerism. But you never saw Maggie flying the high life. Instead she worked very hard. No yachts or racehorses or lavish spending for that grocers daughter. Mo "Celtic Mist" or Inishvickilaun or mansion at Kinsealy or dishonesty sneaking off to Paris with a secret lover. I remember hearing a story of frugality from a visitor to Checkers once - will not repeat it here.

It's all about how it was financed. Thatcher created her own property crash, that much her politics is directly to blame for, the economic crash 20 years later obviously less so, but her ideology played a part.

It's the part I wonder about, Thatcherism wasn't really that successful, Reagan far more so, the politician wasn't that great, it was a matter of an ideology war and the truth is a minor irritant when it comes to that, brain washing is far more effective.

I loved Ray McSharry as a Minister of Finance, but I wouldn't want 12 years of him as a Taoiseach.

wonderfullife · 10-04-2013 12:29AM

Maybe it's just me but the actual concept of giving free milk to schoolkids is a bit ridiculous in the first place!! Where does that stop? Give free apples, oranges, bananas?

I don't think it's up to the State to ensure children get enough calcium, vitamins or nutrition. That's a parenting role and Thatcher was quite right to cut that and save money.

We'd be up in arms if the Government here decided to hand out free milk to children at the cost of however many million to the taxpayer.

K-9 · 10-04-2013 12:37AM

Norwesterner wrote: »

Come on ffs.
Is she to blame for the consumerism and make over programmes in Ireland, France, U.S as well?

Why didn't Labour revert her polices when they had 10 years to do it.
Why didn't they bring back free milk, re-open the pits, stop families in council estates from buying their own property (the previous Labour policy).
Why don't we get free milk in Irish schools? Thatcher?
Some people in power just blame her for taking the hard decisions with the comfortable conclusion that they don't have to.
But in secret they're (New Labour) glad she did.

She was a huge believer in property ownership.

I'm not blaming her for tacky spray painted picture frames, just she was a big believer in property. A bit like FF, pump up property as a viable long term economic driver, the problem is you need jobs and growth to drive it. Everything is great while the economy is doing well, it's a house of cards when the ponzi scheme collapses.

House of Cards! Loosely based on Thatcher, what a show:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098825/

true · 10-04-2013 12:38AM

K-9 wrote: »

It's all about how it was financed.

You cannot blame her for that. Thatchers attitude was that if you wanted something , YOU worked for it and got it. The world did not owe you anything. You get up off your backside and work for it. Do whatever it takes. Like she herself done.
As someone else said ( correctly) a few posts ago, New Labour had a "I have it I spend it" attitude, much like Mc Creevy.
They also had a "if I don't have it, I'll borrow and then spend it" attitude.

The conservatives - then as now - have a more prudent, more responsible attitude to money. More northern Europe than southern europe attitude towards money.

Norwesterner · 10-04-2013 12:40AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Maybe it's just me but the actual concept of giving free milk to schoolkids is a bit ridiculous in the first place!! Where does that stop? Give free apples, oranges, bananas?

I don't think it's up to the State to ensure children get enough calcium, vitamins or nutrition. That's a parenting role and Thatcher was quite right to cut that and save money.

We'd be up in arms if the Government here decided to hand out free milk to children at the cost of however many million to the taxpayer.

I enjoyed my little bottle of chilled milk in the glass bottle at school.
I think it was to counter low nutrition levels/rickets/ bone deficincies in post war Britain.
Nazis were big into youth health programmes as were the Communists.
Truth be told it was probably the British playing catch up in a little way, and keeping the kids healthy in case of another major conflict.

In some aspects it was better decades ago compared to now. We had our free milk and a potable water font in the playground.
This has been replaced by expensive sugary drinks and expensive bottled water.
So much more obesity and hyperactive kids these days.
I'd love to see the free milk and water font back, and plastic bottles banned from school.

Norwesterner · 10-04-2013 12:46AM

K-9 wrote: »

She was a huge believer in property ownership.

I'm not blaming her for tacky spray painted picture frames, just she was a big believer in property. A bit like FF, pump up property as a viable long term economic driver, the problem is you need jobs and growth to drive it. Everything is great while the economy is doing well, it's a house of cards when the ponzi scheme collapses.

House of Cards! Loosely based on Thatcher, what a show:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098825/

Well, i remember the debate at the time, vis a vis, council tenants buying their own property.
Thatcher believed, that when people own their own house, they are more likely to take pride in their house, their street and their community.
I think thats indisputable.
Even in my own town, I saw council estates with boarded up properties where you couldn't give houses away, transformed into desirable places to live.
On the whole it's been succesful and probably saved taxpayers billions over the years

K-9 · 10-04-2013 12:47AM

true wrote: »

You cannot blame her for that. Thatchers attitude was that if you wanted something , YOU worked for it and got it. The world did not owe you anything. You get up off your backside and work for it. Do whatever it takes. Like she herself done.
As someone else said ( correctly) a few posts ago, New Labour had a "I have it I spend it" attitude, much like Mc Creevy.
They also had a "if I don't have it, I'll borrow and then spend it" attitude.

The conservatives - then as now - have a more prudent, more responsible attitude to money. More northern Europe than southern europe attitude towards money.

It's hardly that successful though? They keep saying it will work, but keep revising down figures.

Interesting you mention Northern European countries, the UK hasn't been Berlin for decades, along with Ireland it was marrying Boston with Berlin, hasn't worked out well for either country.

Meanwhile the likes of Germany and Sweden get along quite well, re-unification and property crashes and stuff like that.

true · 10-04-2013 12:47AM

K-9 wrote: »

She was a huge believer in property ownership.

a million people bought their own council home. The average quality of housing increased in the UK in the period in question. Would you prefer if most people or everyone lived in tower blocks or slums?

K-9 wrote: »

A bit like FF, pump up property as a viable long term economic driver, the problem is you need jobs and growth to drive it.

Unlike FF she did not overheat the property market by section 23 , section 27 or section 50 type legislation. She did not destroy the UK countryside with one off houses and her planners were not associated with corruption like here. Ghost estates were not built like here and she was not responsible for property programmes.

K-9 · 10-04-2013 12:51AM

Norwesterner wrote: »

Well, i remember the debate at the time, vis a vis, council tenants buying their own property.
Thatcher believed, that when people own their own house, they are more likely to take pride in their house, their street and their community.
I think thats indisputable.
Even in my own town, I saw council estates with boarded up properties where you couldn't give houses away, transformed into desirable places to live.
On the whole it's been succesful and probably saved taxpayers billions over the years

Considering the debate over the huge cost of rental supplement, I doubt how successful it was.

Again, I'll come back to my point made last night, some Tories aren't really opposed to the cost of welfare, they are opposed to the very existence of it.

true · 10-04-2013 12:52AM

K-9 wrote: »

It's hardly that successful though? They keep saying it will work, but keep revising down figures.

They inherited a bad financial situation. Besides, I am not saying the concservatives or Thatchers government were / are perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. Sweden and Germany are not perfect either.

K-9 · 10-04-2013 12:55AM

true wrote: »

a million people bought their own council home. The average quality of housing increased in the UK in the period in question. Would you prefer if most people or everyone lived in tower blocks or slums?

Hence the reference to property programmes! I doubt may felt great in 1989 in the property crash.

Unlike FF she did not overheat the property market by section 23 , section 27 or section 50 type legislation. She did not destroy the UK countryside with one off houses and her planners were not associated with corruption like here. Ghost estates were not built like here and she was not responsible for property programmes.

She wasn't quite as bad as FF, that's grand then.

kinkygirl · 10-04-2013 12:56AM

The lady died at 87 years of age...peacefully...in The Ritz Hotel. Now that is class!
She doesn't give a damn about those dancing in the streets at her demise.
RIP Iron Lady.

karma_ · 10-04-2013 12:57AM

true wrote: »

They inherited a bad financial situation. Besides, I am not saying the concservatives or Thatchers government were / are perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. Sweden and Germany are not perfect either.

Yet both Sweden and Germany have strong social programs and Germany kept it's manufacturing base. It would appear you are grasping at any straw.

true · 10-04-2013 12:57AM

K-9 wrote: »

Again, I'll come back to my point made last night, some Tories aren't really opposed to the cost of welfare, they are opposed to the very existence of it.

Which tories are they? I have not heard of that, although I am aware that some people in the UK feel they have a problem with the millions of immigrants they have, a large amount of whom are on welfare. Ever been to London larely? Or Bradford?

Nodin · 10-04-2013 01:00AM

true wrote: »

Which tories are they? I have not heard of that, although I am aware that some people in the UK feel they have a problem with the millions of immigrants they have, a large amount of whom are on welfare. Ever been to London larely? Or Bradford?

Dear o dear o dear.

Nodin · 10-04-2013 01:00AM

kinkygirl wrote: »

The lady died at 87 years of age...peacefully...in The Ritz Hotel. Now that is class!
She doesn't give a damn about those dancing in the streets at her demise.
RIP Iron Lady.

Course she doesn't, she's dead.

K-9 · 10-04-2013 01:00AM

The UK is more sustainable than Ireland because they didn't slash the tax base on dependable taxes, New Labour kept a high tax base to try and get close to finance high spending, plus they've an independent monetary policy, not that it helped Ireland much in the 70/80's.

If Labour had slashed taxes, the UK would be in a far worse position. It's why I wonder at the policy to not tax minimum wage, that proved disastrous here and why do some see that as a good idea? Why shouldn't people on minimum wage pay taxes?

It's a subsidy for big business to pay crap wages.

kinkygirl · 10-04-2013 01:04AM

Nodin wrote: »

Course she doesn't, she's dead.

:rolleyes:

true · 10-04-2013 01:05AM

karma_ wrote: »

Yet both Sweden and Germany have strong social programs and Germany kept it's manufacturing base.

If Thatcher had not come along and rescued Britain from the clasp of the dreaded IMF, and transformed it in to the second biggest contributer to the EC ( after germany ), its manufacturing base in 1990 would have been worse that it was then. She pavel the way from the strikes and outdated union practices ogf the 1970's to modern practices, where the likes of Nissan, Toyota, Mini, Honda, Rolls Royce, British Aerospace and others could operate to current world class standards.

true · 10-04-2013 01:06AM

Nodin wrote: »

Course she doesn't, she's dead.

:rolleyes:

Nodin · 10-04-2013 01:07AM

true wrote: »

If Thatcher had not come along and rescued Britain from the clasp of the dreaded IMF, and transformed it in to the second biggest contributer to the EC ( after germany ), its manufacturing base in 1990 would have been worse that it was then. She pavel the way from the strikes and outdated union practices ogf the 1970's to modern practices, where the likes of Nissan, Toyota, Mini, Honda, Rolls Royce, British Aerospace and others could operate to current world class standards.

...which doesn't refute what he said.

Whats all this about 'millions of immigrants' on social welfare?

true · 10-04-2013 01:16AM

Nodin wrote: »

...which doesn't refute what he said.

Whats all this about 'millions of immigrants' on social welfare?

The UK compared to some countries has a strong social programme. Why drag Sweden and Germany in to it. And Germany is the most successful exporting country in the world, the UK is not, but that is not Mrs T's fault. I never claimed she could or did do miracles.

Oh, and I never said 'millions of immigrants' on social welfare ...get your facts right

Nodin · 10-04-2013 01:19AM

true wrote: »

The UK compared to some countries has a strong social programme. Why drag Sweden and Germany in to it. And Germany is the most successful exporting country in the world, the UK is not, but that is not Mrs T's fault.

Still evading the point he made.

true wrote: »

Oh, and I never said 'millions of immigrants' on social welfare ...get your facts right

Well, why don't you explain to me, dim fool that I am, exactly what you did mean.

true · 10-04-2013 01:21AM

Nodin wrote: »

Still evading the point he made.

.

No I did not. Ask K-9 himself.

Nodin · 10-04-2013 01:22AM

true wrote: »

No I did not. Ask K-9 himself.

It wasn't k-9's point.

About these "millions of immigrants" - what did you mean?

karma_ · 10-04-2013 01:25AM

true wrote: »

The UK compared to some countries has a strong social programme. Why drag Sweden and Germany in to it. And Germany is the most successful exporting country in the world, the UK is not, but that is not Mrs T's fault. I never claimed she could or did do miracles.

You are perfectly happy to use Germany and Sweden to make your points, but get defensive when those same points get refuted?

It's like a bad scientist who keeps repeating the same failed experiment time after time and refuses to believe the results he gets.

Maggie Thatcher death discussion thread - Mod rules in first post

Comments