Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Maggie Thatcher - The worst PM in UK's history and an economic failure Watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by orange9)
    where would the money come from nowadays to build significant amounts of social housing?
    The three consecutive budget surpluses at the turn of the millenium for one.

    (Original post by orange9)
    by the way i agree that whoever was in charge in 1979, changes were needed, my gripe is the harshness and cold bloodedness of the whole affair, that the legacy of miners and industry workers losing their jobs still exists today in wales, where i live.
    Except manufacturing increased under Thatcher. Sure, the mines closed, but they were closed under Wilson and Calaghan too. Let's not forget who brought the big Japanese car giants to the North of England.

    (Original post by orange9)
    as students who will (touch wood) never see real poverty, its easy to become detached from the day to day reality of poverty and food parcels. i am not a labour supporter, just someone who has seen the impact of what you talk about.
    Trust me I know first hand what 'poverty' is like, I'm no middle class full time student. I simply have a different attitude to it all and instead of feeling sorry for myself I have aspirations to escape my working class roots.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by orange9)
    in my opinion, a car insurance salesman would find it easier in the 21st century job market, to find work than a lifelong miner with no qualifications, thats not to say its not regrettable.
    Why? What qualifications do you need to be a car insurance salesman that a coal miner wouldn't have? You don't need A-levels and you don't need university.

    You just need to finish school, and sometimes not even that, I personally know someone who flunked all of his GCSEs and then went into doing car insurance sales - precisely why I picked a job where no specific qualifications were required for my original example.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Karla_Steinbach)
    That's an oxymoron darling

    Two wrongs don't make a right.
    You've not answered any of my points though. Was Argentina right and justified in invading the Falklands? Do you believe in the free peoples right to self determination?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think John Major or David Cameron will be honoured as much when they die :rolleyes: (only because Thatcher was the first woman Prime Minister and the longest serving of the 20th century...)
    Offline

    0
    Oooo oooo ooo she's dead you know
    douglas hurd can't believe it is so
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Why? What qualifications do you need to be a car insurance salesman that a coal miner wouldn't have? You don't need A-levels and you don't need university.

    You just need to finish school, and sometimes not even that, I personally know someone who flunked all of his GCSEs and then went into doing car insurance sales - precisely why I picked a job where no specific qualifications were required for my original example.
    will a car insurance company going bust mean a town becomes a ghost town?

    will there be hundreds of other car insurance companies who will be hiring new staff?

    did the miners have alternative mining or jobs in industry to go into?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    The three consecutive budget surpluses at the turn of the millenium for one.



    Except manufacturing increased under Thatcher. Sure, the mines closed, but they were closed under Wilson and Calaghan too. Let's not forget who brought the big Japanese car giants to the North of England.



    Trust me I know first hand what 'poverty' is like, I'm no middle class full time student. I simply have a different attitude to it all and instead of feeling sorry for myself I have aspirations to escape my working class roots.
    you mean this time of surplus?



    we'd be in even more debt if we did that :eek:

    as for nissan (and other foreign companies), they have a nasty habit of demanding subsidies, and threatening to move production to different countries unless they get their way.

    a quick google search:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/833403.stm
    http://boards.fool.co.uk/government-...n-6386831.aspx
    http://businesscasestudies.co.uk/bus...#axzz2QHWze5Mv

    its not standing on its own two feet is it now!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by orange9)
    will a car insurance company going bust mean a town becomes a ghost town?

    will there be hundreds of other car insurance companies who will be hiring new staff?

    did the miners have alternative mining or jobs in industry to go into?
    If a car insurance company goes bust, their employees will be out of work. If a mine goes bust, the same will happen.

    If there isn't alternative employment in the town, then you have put them all out of work.

    If there is, then you won't.

    This makes no difference as to whether or not they are a miner or a insurance salesman, since both get their training on the job.

    You believe that miners jobs should be subsidised if they are uneconomic, but by your own admission, you would not subsidise car insurance salesmen because it's 'easier for them to get a new job'

    I have just shown you that that is false.

    A miner can easily get a job as a car insurance salesman just as a car insurance salesman can be a miner.
    Offline

    0
    On a more serious note.

    The economy grew due to the discovery of North Sea Oil above all else. During this period of supposed growth we also had two recessions of vast, vast unemployment and her response? "Get on your bike"
    The economy changed, this is little to do with Thatcherism, many wrongly assume it was, but instead of helping those who struggled to adapt to the new world, to pay their way, she gave them the dogma of what unemployment is today "lazy/living off benifits/etc" when in reality they were unskilled and not fit for the workplace - coupled with the two recessions her policies helped to create.
    She left those who were unskilled and out of work to rot on benefits - this is her legacy in welfare - as the bill increased year after year.
    At the same time she cut spending in schools and hospitals, as the welfare bill shot up and up. By 1997 by all accounts the NHS and the school system were an utter farce - under spending vastly below European averages. Failed.

    She signed the Single European Act then hypocritically changed tune. Nothing changed Europe most than the Single European Act, it was a compromise of Thatcherite wants for free market, with social democratic protection of workers - when, the ****ing 'hard negotiator' she pretended to be found this out a few years alter she claimed to be duped. HA! She underminded John Major and almost every single Tory leader since over this issue before they all came round to being consumed paranoia extremists following her supposed 'legacy' in Europe. Failed.

    In Northern Ireland - disgraceful. Her posturing cost lives on both sides of the Irish Sea. Look at the great work John Major and then Tony Blair did to see just how wrong she was. She fueled fire the problem which was already huge. Failed.

    She helped to bring about the end of the Cold War - a noble achievement but she ruined that legacy with Pol Pot, calling Mandela a terrorist, trying to block the reunification of Germany, Pinochet and it goes on. Failed.

    Her privatisation and house building policy. She sold off much and we pay this price today. On the plus side she helped make the richer richer, and many middle/working class people better off too. But it was a short term gain for long term pain. Those who won from buying their house or quick shares in a former nationalised industry grew and swelled up the middle class and won her votes and the adulation she has today. But at what price? The un-affordable house prices that cripple and block young low earners from joining the market? The fact she treated and we have since as owning a house as substantial cover for old age care? To pay huge energy and gas bills to private shareholders or, as "THE PATRIOT PRIME MINISTER" allowed - to foreign governments and business - like the French in the energy sector, or arriva buses in Holland, or the conglomerate (undertaken by Major) on the railways. The prices rise and instead of seeing the results, the money back - we see nothing. Those who gained won. Congratulations to them - but the rest of us? What exactly do we get? Short termism. Winners and losers.

    The Unions. She won. They had to be beaten and calmed of that there is no doubt and they brought a lot of the fault upon themselves but there was no need to humiliate the miners, to divide the communities and leave so many with so little hope after. There was a direct us vs them policy. A government of a civilized country cannot function like that - to fight a battle against your own people - win and then let them die. It is not right - regardless of the politics.

    Hillsborough - the less said the better but again I am sure, as is everyone in my city that the political position of Liverpool (Against her) did not help the way we were treated. It went to the top of government. She will live with this and her response to the disaster forever.

    Sexism - first female prime minister - but who did she bring to her cabinet? Look at the records. Some feminist.

    Racism - Liverpool and London saw rioting.

    Soctland - Poll tax guinea pig and neglected.

    The Big Bang - her legacy and this economic policy left us (Not just her, also New Labour and Major) greatly exposed - more than any other country in the West to a financial crisis. When it hit we had to pay the most. This is why our deficit is so huge because we had the most to pay - our spending was not huge and our deficit very respectable before the crash, it shot up because we were so exposed. This is a legacy of our response during Thatcherism to the changing economy. Many think she called it right - history proves now this was wrong.

    The Belgrano - dodgy ground or not? Everyone would say dodgy is the nicest thing you could say here.

    She failed in so many areas, caused so much harm and that is why she is hated and we celebrate. You shouldn't confuse conviction with greatness - she was a conviction Prime Minister but she promised to bring "harmony where there is discord" - I mean come on Maggie, **** off.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    If a car insurance company goes bust, their employees will be out of work. If a mine goes bust, the same will happen.

    If there isn't alternative employment in the town, then you have put them all out of work.

    If there is, then you won't.

    This makes no difference as to whether or not they are a miner or a insurance salesman, since both get their training on the job.

    You believe that miners jobs should be subsidised if they are uneconomic, but by your own admission, you would not subsidise car insurance salesmen because it's 'easier for them to get a new job'

    I have just shown you that that is false.

    A miner can easily get a job as a car insurance salesman just as a car insurance salesman can be a miner.
    i have stated on more than one occasion that i believe the unions and british industry in general, needed to change. my issue lies in the way the changes were carried out, not that they were actually carried out. if you had read my previous posts then would see that i actually stated that whoever came to power in 1979 would have had the same issues.

    ironically, as i pointed out, the industries that 'replaced' these uneconomic jobs, such as the nissan plant, and a panasonic one near me, are only there because of subsidies :rolleyes: now thats something thatcher would have been proud of, being bullied into giving subsidies to line the pocket of foreign companies!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by orange9)
    i have stated on more than one occasion that i believe the unions and british industry in general, needed to change. my issue lies in the way the changes were carried out, not that they were actually carried out. if you had read my previous posts then would see that i actually stated that whoever came to power in 1979 would have had the same issues.

    ironically, as i pointed out, the industries that 'replaced' these uneconomic jobs, such as the nissan plant, and a panasonic one near me, are only there because of subsidies :rolleyes: now thats something thatcher would have been proud of, being bullied into giving subsidies to line the pocket of foreign companies!
    A subsidy to start off and make an industry profitable is a whole different thing to a subsidy to prop up a failing industry. And even if the subsidy continues, the industry has to be profitable.

    Nissan and Panasonic ARE profitable, I take it?

    You do know that for the first four or five years, Thatcher was subsidising the NCB too, yet still it was making a loss? Except it got to the case where it was requiring increasing amounts of subsidy each year - almost a billion and a half in today's money the year before the subsidy was turned off...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    A subsidy to start off and make an industry profitable is a whole different thing to a subsidy to prop up a failing industry. And even if the subsidy continues, the industry has to be profitable.

    Nissan and Panasonic ARE profitable, I take it?

    You do know that for the first four or five years, Thatcher was subsidising the NCB too, yet still it was making a loss? Except it got to the case where it was requiring increasing amounts of subsidy each year - almost a billion and a half in today's money the year before the subsidy was turned off...
    yes, but thats not whats happening is it?

    the plant opened in the mid 80's and still receives subsidies. why?

    and when they dont get them they threaten to up sticks.

    what you dont seem to understand is that i agree with the underlying issue, that coal production needed to be scaled back somewhat, but i disagree with the methods thatcher used.

    just out of interest, would you be thinking the same thing if you lost your job in the 80's and were living day to day off food parcels? i doubt it. there are two sides to every story.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by orange9)
    yes, but thats not whats happening is it?

    the plant opened in the mid 80's and still receives subsidies. why?

    and when they dont get them they threaten to up sticks.

    what you dont seem to understand is that i agree with the underlying issue, that coal production needed to be scaled back somewhat, but i disagree with the methods thatcher used.

    just out of interest, would you be thinking the same thing if you lost your job in the 80's and were living day to day off food parcels? i doubt it. there are two sides to every story.
    I would have to ask myself was the decision made in the best interests of the country.

    I have lost my job a couple of times through redundancy, once because I was working in an unprofitable business that went bust, and the other because I was working in an unprofitable area of the business. Was I upset about losing my job? Sure. Did this make me angry with my boss? No, I accepted economic reality.

    The methods Thatcher used? In what way were these different to the methods Wilson used?

    So you agree that it was right to scale back close the uneconomic pits, so what would you have done differently for the benefit of the whole country?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J_H123698)
    The Belgrano - dodgy ground or not? Everyone would say dodgy is the nicest thing you could say here.
    No, the actual nicest thing you could say is the truth: not dodgy in the slightest.
    Horrible, yes, but a fair and legal action in a time of war against an enemy combatant.

    That people perpetuate the myth of this being a war crime is purely down to the fact that they dislike Thatcher and are seeking any reason at all to discredit her.
    Offline

    0
    It isn't a war crime at all but it is very dodgy on moral grounds. It is very hard to dispute that however you feel about Thatcher.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J_H123698)
    It isn't a war crime at all but it is very dodgy on moral grounds. It is very hard to dispute that however you feel about Thatcher.
    I fail to see how it is. Beyond the fact it was an enemy combatant in a warzone, it was also the enemy's flagship and the removal of it from the theatre of war removed a significant threat against the entire task force. It was the correct move on both a tactical and strategic level.
    The Argentine Navy, as well as the Captain of the vessel at the time of it's sinking, have long since said that while it was sailing away from the islands when struck (though this is a redundant fact as a warship can turn a full 360 degress in a matter of seconds) it was sailing around the islands to engage the British Taskforce in a pincer attack.

    I'm sorry if your view of 'fair play' includes allowing an enemy the chance to kill the servicemen of this country, but that's simply not how it works in the real world.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    I fail to see how it is. Beyond the fact it was an enemy combatant in a warzone, it was also the enemy's flagship and the removal of it from the theatre of war removed a significant threat against the entire task force. It was the correct move on both a tactical and strategic level.
    The Argentine Navy, as well as the Captain of the vessel at the time of it's sinking, have long since said that while it was sailing away from the islands when struck (though this is a redundant fact as a warship can turn a full 360 degress in a matter of seconds) it was sailing around the islands to engage the British Taskforce in a pincer attack.

    I'm sorry if your view of 'fair play' includes allowing an enemy the chance to kill the servicemen of this country, but that's simply not how it works in the real world.
    Drewski is right, as he so often is. :cool: It's all in the documents and is laid out very clearly as a docudrama in the Falklands Play which is linked to above.

    The stuff about it being a war crime all came from Tam Dalyell (plus a rather misguided campaign by the Eye - I'm a fan, but they get it wrong sometimes) and he had his own very strong Scottish Socialist motives for slapping Maggie, not least that he wasn't a huge fan of women being in charge of things.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Drewski is right, as he so often is. :cool: It's all in the documents and is laid out very clearly as a docudrama in the Falklands Play which is linked to above.

    The stuff about it being a war crime all came from Tam Dalyell (plus a rather misguided campaign by the Eye - I'm a fan, but they get it wrong sometimes) and he had his own very strong Scottish Socialist motives for slapping Maggie, not least that he wasn't a huge fan of women being in charge of things.
    Very kind of you!



    Mrs T had many faults and there were many a thing she did that others would not and that rightly come under scrutiny. But this is not one of them.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Except manufacturing increased under Thatcher. Sure, the mines closed, but they were closed under Wilson and Calaghan too. Let's not forget who brought the big Japanese car giants to the North of England.
    I think this is what people forget. The mines were already closing under Calaghan and Wilson in the 1970s, but where is the criticism for them?

    Oh right, sorry - It's the Labour grassroots of the North that's hating Thatcher for accelerating the process. Labour leaders can criticise all they want for Thatcher closing the mines down - But it was they that started the process off.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Trust me I know first hand what 'poverty' is like, I'm no middle class full time student. I simply have a different attitude to it all and instead of feeling sorry for myself I have aspirations to escape my working class roots.
    I think you and I need to get to know each other better Seriously though, it's become a fashionable thing among the lack of aspirational to shout at the government and criticise them for what their doing - but they don't have a drive needed to want to become better.

    That doesn't mean I'm a Tory propagandist - I resent with an absolute passion what the backwardly callous Tory government is doing. It's unfair. But why aren't people, ultimately, creating jobs; wanting to control businesses and employ people? Where are the young entrepreneurs; the young Richard Branson's of this country?

    Surely we should be attacking that just as much?

    One of the reasons why I want to be a television producer is because I want to shoot and broadcast live events (etc.) but because I want to employ people and create teams who, should they choose to do so, work for me. Why is that idea treated with such disdain? :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azarimanka)
    Be offended.

    To simplify it

    1. You think she should just have let a dictatorship stamp all over our people? Pathetic. Perhaps you feel that we were wrong to push Hitler out of France?

    2. Right to buy: you want to stamp over working class aspiration. Perhaps you feel people ought to stay at the bottom.

    3. Yes, they conserved their homes. Problem? Why?
    Lol what I was doing there was giving the reasons for the election victories because you claimed Thatcher to have won the 3 elections being the falsifying evidence against the 21 claims made by the OP.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.