Thatcher dead

[pete]

Will close the thread if this turns into a political bun fight.

Lol.
Makes political statement on internet.
Is surprised when conflicting statements are made.

I despair of people judging her on her convictions rather than her wholesale destruction of British Industry.

[campbell]

How much longer would British "industry" have survived without intervention, do we think?

I was sad to hear today's news. Primarily because Maggie dominated our country during my teenage years. Impressionable age and all that.

I always paid my poll tax but that was not a political statement

[PhilA]

"her wholesale destruction of British Industry."

Nope, that would be the bankers.
Private, money making, industry steamed ahead.
It was all jobs for the boys before that.
Without her changes, GB was just going to continue going broke.

/makes another policial statement on the internet and expects more replies.

RIP Maggie, judging on her personality, i wish we had more like her.

[Kinger]

Hi,

I'm not a political person or a lover of Mrs Thatcher, but as an older citizen I do remember being made to go on stike for a 30% pay rise in the mid 70's. And yes we were made to go on strike, opposing the union at that time was not an option if you wanted to keep your job. Our country was in need of great change. I can't say the lady got it right or I agree whith a lot of what she did during her time in power. But I do believe she made Great Britain Great again, this palce was such a joke I took myself off to work overseas where you could work as hard as wanted to get what you wanted.

I do feel that a lot of us here would not be driving our Lotus's if it wasn't for the changes she made back in her day, she allowed people who wanted to graft to go and do it. To get the best for themselves and their families.

Don't get me wrong, god she got a lot wrong, but on balance looking back I think she got a lot right.

I'm really glad to hear most politicians are very repectful on her passing away, with the exception of Mr Sheridan, did expect aything else from him.

RIP Maggie

[pete]

I find it fascinating so many people seem unable to see past her, presuming her solution was the only solution. The dIsmantling of the unions may have been necessary but it was done at the expense of the manufacturing industry.
Indeed those who regularly complain about the state of modern Britain are exactly the same ones now composing a hagiography to its chief architect.

Bless.

[kenny]

The dIsmantling of the unions may have been necessary but it was done at the expense of the manufacturing industry.

And that was her doing alone was it? The unions themselves were entirely blameless.

Thatcher, and I am fairly ambivalent towards her, initially just wanted to change a heavily subsidised industry into something that might actually turn a profit.

Caught part of an interview with Neil Kinnock yesterday where even he laid the largest portion of blame on Arthur Scargill.

[kenny]

Congrats on the first use of 'hagiography' on SE by the way.

[pete]

Congrats on the first use of 'hagiography' on SE by the way.

Cheers

[tut]

Why were the coal mines closed Pete, you may know, most do not?

China and third world countries were selling coal way below the price that we could produce it for. The mines were doomed once that started happening, just as British businesses started to move their production to the Far East, pure economics. The great ship yards and the car industry went the same way, they could both be produced more cheaply overseas.

Do you happen to remember the mounds of rubbish covering London, and the bodies having to be left in the streets when the Unions were trying to hold the Country to ransome in 78/79. She did not give into them and that ended their stranglehold, and thankfully also the end of Scargill. The Unions did a great job in the early days, but then got power mad and abused that power.

The Poll Tax was a great idea, those against it were the ones that were not paying their fair share for services, and the Scots as it was being introduced here first. Along with the majority who had no idea what it was about anyway, but gave them a chance to join the protests on the streets and get themselves seen on TV. Sheep. We would not have had the situation where a single OAP was paying the same as a family like the Philpotts, not that they did pay any, he had to survive on a mere £98,000 a year.

When she took over as PM inflation was running at 22% and the top rate of tax was 98%.

Time to drink my tea now and watch her Legacy on TV.

tut

[BiggestNizzy]

The Phillpots are a bad example they are the exception rather than the rule. (there are only 29 families with that many kids on benefits in the UK)

[tut]

Agreed Graeme, that level is extreme, but as it is in the open it is an example of someone planning a child every year purely to rake in the benefits.

If there was a sensible cut off limit of around three that could claim benefits, this would not be possible.

tut

[Titanium S1 111S (gla)]

This is a very difficult area and I am as opposed to benefit scroungers as anyone else, but should children be allowed to starve because their parents are irresponsible?

If one takes an evolutionist approach the answer would be yes but I doubt that would prove acceptable to the majority.

Personally, I favor non cash benefits in these circumstances. Why not deal with the very worst offenders by giving food, cloths, energy rather than drinking/cigarette tokens?

Does that suggestion make me sound like Mrs T?

[BiggestNizzy]

I would rather they spent more time going after the other end of teh spectrum, they avoid more tax than is spent on Jakies.

Although that is what the City of London is good at legally squirilling away rich peoples money. They are rubbish at banking.

[Kelvin]

Agreed Graeme, that level is extreme, but as it is in the open it is an example of someone planning a child every year purely to rake in the benefits.

If there was a sensible cut off limit of around three that could claim benefits, this would not be possible.

tut

It's not an example of that at all tut from what I read about it, it was much more about controlling the various women in his life. Using the Philpott case as an argument to reduce the welfare state is really quite tenuous at best and disgusting at its worst (not aimed at you) Similarly, while large families get all the headlines in the usual places they represent a tiny proportion of the cost of the welfare state (the elderly make up the biggest proportion of it) . What the right is doing is setting up a conflict between the poorest in society, and lumping them all in with marginal examples, against the rest of us. It's quite depressing frankly. I've no doubt that we can make the welfare state more efficient, and we should, but we can't cut our way out of this mess, they only way to is to grow and invest.

And I could make a reasonable argument that Thatcherism was the catalyst that has got us into the mess we are in today; along with poor management practice and unionism of course.

[Scotty C]