Maggie Thatcher death discussion thread - Mod rules in first post

Hank Schrader · 13-04-2013 01:34AM

gurramok wrote: »

Will be interesting to see how many top league football matches in England will hold a minutes silence for Thatcher tomorrow(or later today). I suspect hardly any and that is hardly surprising.

This will not be allowed to happen in the first place because of the inevitable results

Rascasse · 13-04-2013 01:38AM

Mr Tibbs wrote: »

Poor auld Maggie is dead but she can still start a good argument. Often wondered if there hadn't been an election on the horizon would she have sent her forces on that little excursion to the South Atlantic.

There wasn't really an election on the cards - Argentina invaded 3 years into a 5 year term. There was no guarantee they would win, and if they did, that it would be of political benefit.

In the end it was a great success and Thatcher ended up calling an election a year early, as is the Prime Minister's prerogative.

gurramok wrote: »

Will be interesting to see how many top league football matches in England will hold a minutes silence for Thatcher tomorrow(or later today). I suspect hardly any and that is hardly surprising.

I don't see why there would be silences. Fair enough for a head of state as there would be a day of national mourning.

Apart from Madjeski, has anyone seriously suggested clubs were thinking about it?

true · 13-04-2013 01:42AM

Mr Tibbs wrote: »

Often wondered if there hadn't been an election on the horizon would she have sent her forces on that little excursion to the South Atlantic.

She still would, she was a woman of principle and did not want to set precedents. eg China going in to Hong Kong, Spain in to Gibralter etc.
Actually the Falklands battle was not a forgone conclusion. There were estimate of 10,000 Argentinian soldiers on the islands. It could have cost a lot more British lives than it did, never mind her re-election. Think Dieppe in WW2.

gurramok · 13-04-2013 01:55AM

Rascasse wrote: »

I don't see why there would be silences. Fair enough for a head of state as there would be a day of national mourning.

Apart from Madjeski, has anyone seriously suggested clubs were thinking about it?

Man U. refused to hold a minutes silence in their match last Monday on the day of her death. We and you know why.

Norwesterner · 13-04-2013 02:07AM

Hank Schrader wrote: »

Your post would suggest otherwise

Really.
So if I said FF fecked up the country, but the current lot aren't much better...that would make me a FF apologist.
More coal pits were closed under Labour's 1970 governance.
More Irish people were killed under Labour's 1970 governance.
Bit of objectivity in a debate is healthy, rather than just parrot the mob.

Hank Schrader · 13-04-2013 02:15AM

Norwesterner wrote: »

Really.
So if I said FF fecked up the country, but the current lot aren't much better...that would make me a FF apologist.
More coal pits were closed under Labour's 1970 governance.
More Irish people were killed under Labour's 1970 governance.
Bit of objectivity in a debate is healthy, rather than just parrot the mob.

Eh....yes

As to your other points it's a bit of Stalin v Hitler really

Objectivity only works when you take in both sides point of view

stretchdoe · 13-04-2013 02:16AM

Mr Tibbs wrote: »

Poor auld Maggie is dead but she can still start a good argument. Often wondered if there hadn't been an election on the horizon would she have sent her forces on that little excursion to the South Atlantic.

Can't believe she even countenanced 'using' the military, given that they were funded by dreaded taxes.

She should've created her own private army to do her dirty work for her; i'm sure lots of her biggest supporters would've had no problem volunteering their time and, potentially, their lives.

They would've been much better and more 'efficient' too, surely; given that they wouldn't be sullied by having any association with the state 'teat'.

Norwesterner · 13-04-2013 02:20AM

Hank Schrader wrote: »

Eh....yes

As to your other points it's a bit of Stalin v Hitler really

Objectivity only works when you take in both sides point of view

Sorry, but thats utter nonsense.

Hank Schrader · 13-04-2013 02:33AM

Norwesterner wrote: »

Sorry, but thats utter nonsense.

Great comeback and so well disected

end of the road · 13-04-2013 02:45AM

true wrote: »

China going in to Hong Kong, Spain in to Gibralter

well at least it would be less empire to defend meaning resources could be put to use at home

Hank Schrader · 13-04-2013 02:51AM

end of the road wrote: »

well at least it would be less empire to defend meaning resources could be put to use at home

There is no empire

end of the road · 13-04-2013 02:58AM

Hank Schrader wrote: »

There is no empire

yes your right, i should have said remenants of the empire

Zebra3 · 13-04-2013 03:16AM

Rascasse wrote: »

Apart from Madjeski, has anyone seriously suggested clubs were thinking about it?

Dave Whelan suggested it.

In touch with the people of Wigan. :rolleyes:

wonderfullife · 13-04-2013 03:18AM

drakshug wrote: »

A lot of Maggie apologists on here and a lot of people who didn't live in the UK under her government. I was 13 when she came to power. she defined my generation. Her way of talking down to people, her disdain and dismissal of people forced out of work. The way she destroyed whole communities and yet protected her own. Her talk of a classless society whilst creating a society of two classes - the haves and have nots.
She never understood us Scots and her ideology never got a foothold in Scotland as it did in the home counties. Thatcherism is repugnant and even though the UK media are trying to whitewash and reinvent her legacy I was reminded of it all too vividly last Monday getting a train through Lanarkshire coming back to Ireland. Going past what used to be Ravenscraig steel works and seeing what used to be coal bings and down through North Ayrshire where there was 40% unemployment - it brought it all back. She destroyed it all and ripped the heart out of whole areas. as for her successes. It was a time of boom and bust, of the beginning of casino economics, of a rise in poverty and inequality and of the destruction of the public housing stock
Thatcher may be dead but Thatcherism is still alive and prosperous in Tory and Labour policies. I won't be mourning.

The bit i highlighted just illustrates how easy people find it to blame Thatcher and Thatcherism for things she isn't to blame for.

Ravenscraig steel works closed in 1992 for the loss of 770 jobs and indirectly caused the loss of thousands of jobs linked to the site.

First of all, Thatcher had left power in 1990.

Second of all, the steel industry has declined massively in all major western countries. There's some very good reasons for this:

In the 1950s, 450,000 people were employed in the UK in the Steel Industry. By 2003, that figure was 21,000 people. In 1953, of the 16 million tonnes of steel produced annually, that worked out at 35 tonnes per person employed. By 2003, due to new technologies, each person employed could produce 623 tonnes of steel.

Even by that fact alone, you now only needed 5% of the staff to produce the same productivity.

Then you had massive problems relating to over-capacity (way too much steel being produced relative to demand), you had problems with the value of sterling relative to the Euro being bad for export, then most of all you had the problem every industry faces in the West - the availability of cheaper labour, materials and so forth in China, Pakistan and elsewhere.

Where Thatcher DID fail, is in a lack of support given to nationalised industries when they went private.

But to blame her for the barren waste-lands around Motherwell is a nonsense.The days of steel and coal were numbered from the 1970s onwards. It was a matter of time before this happened and make no mistake, would have happened on anybodys watch - not just Thatcher.

If Neil Kinnock was elected somehow in 1987, Ravenscraig would still have gone to the wall. Nobody could reverse the reality of the situation.

The same happened in Chicago, Pittsburgh and all over the US. And, very like those cities, the problem Motherwell truly faced was spending decades neglecting the formation of other industries. It was all reliant on steel and coal when in truth they could see this coming for decades and little was done by anyone, Thatcher, Callaghan, Major, Blair, to step up and say "wait a minute, we need some other industries here".

Margaret Thatcher is an easy, catch-all target for the miners, ex-miners and surrounding communities. Actually she is an easy target for anybody who suffered bad times in the 1980s and 1990s.

dasdog · 13-04-2013 03:38AM

She had ideas but what a heartless non human. I respect the individualism idea but completely over the top without thought and consequences she probably shivered at night with but never let it show. Good and bad person. Unionists (trade and the other settlers) aren't in the news over there. Why do we hear about Jack O'Connor most every day here in the national news? That's her good side. She'd be doing well as a head of a right wing control the poor club as her bad side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmnjL5GDbcg

stretchdoe · 13-04-2013 03:38AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

The bit i highlighted just illustrates how easy people find it to blame Thatcher and Thatcherism for things she isn't to blame for.

Ravenscraig steel works closed in 1992 for the loss of 770 jobs and indirectly caused the loss of thousands of jobs linked to the site.

First of all, Thatcher had left power in 1990.

Second of all, the steel industry has declined massively in all major western countries. There's some very good reasons for this:

In the 1950s, 450,000 people were employed in the UK in the Steel Industry. By 2003, that figure was 21,000 people. In 1953, of the 16 million tonnes of steel produced annually, that worked out at 35 tonnes per person employed. By 2003, due to new technologies, each person employed could produce 623 tonnes of steel.

Even by that fact alone, you now only needed 5% of the staff to produce the same productivity.

Then you had massive problems relating to over-capacity (way too much steel being produced relative to demand), you had problems with the value of sterling relative to the Euro being bad for export, then most of all you had the problem every industry faces in the West - the availability of cheaper labour, materials and so forth in China, Pakistan and elsewhere.

Where Thatcher DID fail, is in a lack of support given to nationalised industries when they went private.

But to blame her for the barren waste-lands around Motherwell is a nonsense.The days of steel and coal were numbered from the 1970s onwards. It was a matter of time before this happened and make no mistake, would have happened on anybodys watch - not just Thatcher.

If Neil Kinnock was elected somehow in 1987, Ravenscraig would still have gone to the wall. Nobody could reverse the reality of the situation.

The same happened in Chicago, Pittsburgh and all over the US. And, very like those cities, the problem Motherwell truly faced was spending decades neglecting the formation of other industries. It was all reliant on steel and coal when in truth they could see this coming for decades and little was done by anyone, Thatcher, Callaghan, Major, Blair, to step up and say "wait a minute, we need some other industries here".

Margaret Thatcher is an easy, catch-all target for the miners, ex-miners and surrounding communities. Actually she is an easy target for anybody who suffered bad times in the 1980s and 1990s.

So, taking your thesis as read, destroying those industries and those towns with a sledge-hammer, rather than gradually phasing out what was their life-blood, and, as you alluded to, not giving a sh*t about even trying to think about cushioning the blow, was right?

Hank Schrader · 13-04-2013 03:41AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

The bit i highlighted just illustrates how easy people find it to blame Thatcher and Thatcherism for things she isn't to blame for.

Ravenscraig steel works closed in 1992 for the loss of 770 jobs and indirectly caused the loss of thousands of jobs linked to the site.

First of all, Thatcher had left power in 1990.

Second of all, the steel industry has declined massively in all major western countries. There's some very good reasons for this:

In the 1950s, 450,000 people were employed in the UK in the Steel Industry. By 2003, that figure was 21,000 people. In 1953, of the 16 million tonnes of steel produced annually, that worked out at 35 tonnes per person employed. By 2003, due to new technologies, each person employed could produce 623 tonnes of steel.

Even by that fact alone, you now only needed 5% of the staff to produce the same productivity.

Then you had massive problems relating to over-capacity (way too much steel being produced relative to demand), you had problems with the value of sterling relative to the Euro being bad for export, then most of all you had the problem every industry faces in the West - the availability of cheaper labour, materials and so forth in China, Pakistan and elsewhere.

Where Thatcher DID fail, is in a lack of support given to nationalised industries when they went private.

But to blame her for the barren waste-lands around Motherwell is a nonsense.The days of steel and coal were numbered from the 1970s onwards. It was a matter of time before this happened and make no mistake, would have happened on anybodys watch - not just Thatcher.

If Neil Kinnock was elected somehow in 1987, Ravenscraig would still have gone to the wall. Nobody could reverse the reality of the situation.

The same happened in Chicago, Pittsburgh and all over the US. And, very like those cities, the problem Motherwell truly faced was spending decades neglecting the formation of other industries. It was all reliant on steel and coal when in truth they could see this coming for decades and little was done by anyone, Thatcher, Callaghan, Major, Blair, to step up and say "wait a minute, we need some other industries here".

Margaret Thatcher is an easy, catch-all target for the miners, ex-miners and surrounding communities. Actually she is an easy target for anybody who suffered bad times in the 1980s and 1990s.

wonderfullife · 13-04-2013 03:48AM

stretchdoe wrote: »

So, taking your thesis as read, destroying those industries and those towns with a sledge-hammer, rather than gradually phasing out what was their life-blood, and, as you alluded to, not giving a sh*t about even trying to think about cushioning the blow, was right?

No - more thought and support needed to go in to the inevitability that employment in steel and coal was going to collapse.

But that fact was as plain as day from the late 1960s and early 1970s, and certainly as plain as day when we got into the 1990s.

My point is, blame Thatcher solely if you like but that's not a fair assessment. Multiple leaders failed and failed badly to plan for an absolutely certain event. Thatcher is just the poster child for hate as she is an easy target but all of them failed. Blair, Major, Thatcher, Heath, Callaghan.

If we apply the logic that Thatcher was a heartless b1tch who didnt care what happened to the working class folk in steel communities, then the same logic must apply to everyone from Blair back to Callaghan, as none of them took the requisite action to invest in new industries in those areas.

wonderfullife · 13-04-2013 04:15AM

If Thatcher had have spread out her privatisation over a decade, that may well have softened the blow. There is no doubt the speed of her changes did not help the steel or coal industries.

On the flip side of that coin, if she took a decade to implement the changes, then inflation and taxation would have likely remained at catastrophic levels.

She had to go in there and make drastic changes and do them quickly. I'm really not sure where the middle ground was in all this.

Most of her critics accept the changes had to be made but argue with the manner she made them, yet really don't offer up many alternatives she could have went for.

I've yet to see many on here propose a viable alternative she had at the time. If your task, a necessity, is to combat crippling trade union power and privatise a nation overburdened with Nationalised companies, what was her alternatives? Bare in mind any realistic alternative must include a way to get inflation under control.

I think, sadly, the sledgehammer approach was the only viable way forward. Accept a short-term massive increase in unemployment for a more stable longer-term solution. Which, to be fair, was proved correct in the sense that unemployment rose to 3,000,000 by 1984 and fell to 1,700,000 by 1990, when all the effects of her sledgehammer balanced out.

stretchdoe · 13-04-2013 04:17AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

No - more thought and support needed to go in to the inevitability that employment in steel and coal was going to collapse.

But that fact was as plain as day from the late 1960s and early 1970s, and certainly as plain as day when we got into the 1990s.

My point is, blame Thatcher solely if you like but that's not a fair assessment. Multiple leaders failed and failed badly to plan for an absolutely certain event. Thatcher is just the poster child for hate as she is an easy target but all of them failed. Blair, Major, Thatcher, Heath, Callaghan.

If we apply the logic that Thatcher was a heartless b1tch who didnt care what happened to the working class folk in steel communities, then the same logic must apply to everyone from Blair back to Callaghan, as none of them took the requisite action to invest in new industries in those areas.

I think she deserves blame for being guided by a combination of blind ideology and vindictiveness and acting accordingly.
And selfishness and 'not caring', by the way, was the very underpinning of her ideology; she said as much, quite frequently.
Have no idea why her supporters have a problem with that being pointed out.

end of the road · 13-04-2013 04:31AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

privatise a nation overburdened with Nationalised companies

yeah, sell off all the essential utilities to private monopolies who IMO screw their customers and send probably most of their proffits over seas, if she had allowed private competition to use the infrastructure along with the state companies then that would be something i would be congratulating her for as they would all want to compete severely with each other, but how and ever

wonderfullife · 13-04-2013 04:34AM

stretchdoe wrote: »

I think she deserves blame for being guided by a combination of blind ideology and vindictiveness and acting accordingly.
And selfishness and 'not caring', by the way, was the very underpinning of her ideology; she said as much, quite frequently.
Have no idea why her supporters have a problem with that being pointed out.

I'm not a 'supporter' of Thatcher, i just hate seeing unwarranted, disproportionate demonisation of people. I'm no fan of Bertie Ahern either, but if people want to blame and demonise him for all our current problems i'd mount a similar defence.

This was one of the only Prime Ministers in the past 50 years who continued her MP surgery whilst Prime Minister. As in she could conceivably be meeting Gorbachev and Reagan at 12 and be back in Finchley at 4 o clock to listen to her constituents giving out about planning permissions or whatever.

She was a hard working politician and we could do with a few more of them nowadays, preferably ones who don't polarise opinion as badly!

stretchdoe · 13-04-2013 04:37AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

If Thatcher had have spread out her privatisation over a decade, that may well have softened the blow. There is no doubt the speed of her changes did not help the steel or coal industries.

On the flip side of that coin, if she took a decade to implement the changes, then inflation and taxation would have likely remained at catastrophic levels.

She had to go in there and make drastic changes and do them quickly. I'm really not sure where the middle ground was in all this.

Most of her critics accept the changes had to be made but argue with the manner she made them, yet really don't offer up many alternatives she could have went for.

I've yet to see many on here propose a viable alternative she had at the time. If your task, a necessity, is to combat crippling trade union power and privatise a nation overburdened with Nationalised companies, what was her alternatives? Bare in mind any realistic alternative must include a way to get inflation under control.

I think, sadly, the sledgehammer approach was the only viable way forward. Accept a short-term massive increase in unemployment for a more stable longer-term solution. Which, to be fair, was proved correct in the sense that unemployment rose to 3,000,000 by 1984 and fell to 1,700,000 by 1990, when all the effects of her sledgehammer balanced out.

Without even getting into the path that sent Britain upon, the reliance of 'financial services', etc, there's no reason to think she couldn't have 'achieved' the same or more if she'd taken a different approach; without instantly destroying so many lives.
As for her 'getting inflation under-control', France had a similar problem with inflation when Thatcher took power and, funnily enough, achieved the same results, got it 'under-control'/to the same level, under a 'socialist' government.
Outside factors played a part.

wonderfullife · 13-04-2013 05:06AM

stretchdoe wrote: »

Without even getting into the path that sent Britain upon, the reliance of 'financial services', etc, there's no reason to think she couldn't have 'achieved' the same or more if she'd taken a different approach; without instantly destroying so many lives.
As for her 'getting inflation under-control', France had a similar problem with inflation when Thatcher took power and, funnily enough, achieved the same results, got it 'under-control'/to the same level, under a 'socialist' government.
Outside factors played a part.

Yes, that is true. Mitterand did the reverse of Thatcher - nationalised the steel industry in 1981. And yes they, too, got inflation under control by different means.

But just to illustrate the point - the steel industry in France is in a mess. Has been declining along with the rest of Europe for decades.

Whichever way you went on the issue, it was delaying the inevitable. France dragged it out by nationalising the industry. Thatcher made it someone elses problem by privatising it.

But when all is said and done you're left with the exact same situation. In 2012 there was strike after strike by French steelworkers. In places like Florange, where the Mittal plant is going to the wall. People protesting saying it's all they've ever known, there are no jobs to go to etc etc

Whether it was 1992 in Motherwell or 2012 in Florange, whether it was a Tory party or Socialist Party at the helm, the bottom line is the steel industry in Europe was always going to die a death. And you can't argue the slow death in France has been any better than the quicker one in the UK. It's not like the extra 20 years gave the French more time to find industries or jobs in the steel communities - they haven't.

I'm positive Thatcher could have done slightly more for the mining communities but the evidence from France proves that no matter how much time they have to prepare for it, finding jobs or industries for so many people to go to is almost impossible. If a work force is cut from 450,000 to 21,000 in 50 years, in a dying industry in Europe, how on earth do you find 430,000 jobs elsewhere?

wonderfullife · 13-04-2013 05:24AM

In truth, when it comes to the mining communities and steel industry, there was never going to be a way to soften the blow much.

Thatcher comes in privatises the industry, it dies a quick ish death. Miners hate her for it.

Mitterand comes in nationalises the industry. It dies a slower death, whilst the people who suffered were the taxpayers who had to subsidise a Steel Industry losing money hand over fist for over a decade.

Either way, the inevitable result of either approach is massive closures and job losses in both countries.

If, in Ireland, we had a similar dilemma i would much prefer Thatchers approach. Yes it would hurt a certain section of the community but i'd prefer that to all of us getting hurt by having to subsidise a dying industry.

She was in between a rock and a hard place when it comes to steel, coal and mining. People seem to take issue with her callous nature or the way she did it. As if putting a hand around the miners like they're children saying "there, there" would make life better!

Norwesterner · 13-04-2013 05:36AM

stretchdoe wrote: »

So, taking your thesis as read, destroying those industries and those towns with a sledge-hammer, rather than gradually phasing out what was their life-blood, and, as you alluded to, not giving a sh*t about even trying to think about cushioning the blow, was right?

So why didn't Labour reopen Ravenscraig, the coal mines and bring back free milk when they had an absolute majority under Blair?
There were 200 whisky distilleries in Ireland in the 1800's now there are less than half a dozen.
If they were succesful they'd have stayed open.

Caribbean Cat · 13-04-2013 07:27AM

Guns of brixton would probably be a more fiitting song than ding dong the witch is dead....jus'saying is all.

Caribbean Cat · 13-04-2013 07:34AM

Guns of brixton would probably be a more fiitting song than ding dong the witch is dead....jus'saying is all.

wylam · 13-04-2013 08:45AM

This thread is boring now, people still debating policies that were introduced well over over 20 years ago. If they were swift people suffered ,if they were gradual people suffered. Asking for viable alternatives now to something happened a quarter of a century ago is like closing the gate after the horse has bolted, lived a happy life and died of old age. It's so far past the fact it's not even relevant , people have enough problems these days worrying about the current economic situation than to be bothered about this.People are polarised massively on this subject and no amount of posts on this thread is going to make the slightest bit of difference.Why don't people save their energy and idea's for our current problems and come up with some better alternatives of how this government (if you can bring yourself to call them that) can drag our asses out of the sh#t storm we find ourselves in.

PS, I have an alternative route for JFK's motorcade to follow as well lets debate that and see if it changes anything.

TwoShedsJackson · 13-04-2013 08:54AM

Zebra3 wrote: »

Dave Whelan suggested it.

In touch with the people of Wigan. :rolleyes:

Dave Whelan has demonstrated time and again what an utter prat he is, this latest is no surprise.

Maggie Thatcher death discussion thread - Mod rules in first post

Comments