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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I like how you included 1991 in your figure, a year Thatcher wasn't in office, simply so you could duke the stats and include the early 90's recession.
    Unless there was a contraction of 9% in 1991, the Thatcher figures are still lower. And I included 1991 in the Thatcher figures because I'd counted 1979 as pre-Thatcher (I wasn't sure what point in each year the stats are from).

    Regardless, those figures do not stack up to the ONS' ones-
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...h-economy#data
    In 11 years, growth under Thatcher averaged 2.8%, in the 11 years before that it averaged 2.4%.[/QUOTE]

    How did you work that out?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    With the Belgrano, of course it's relevant whether it was sailing away or not. It was a rutheless act.
    The Bismark was sailing to St Nazaire when it was sunk. The Tirpitz was in Tromso Fjord when it was sunk. The Conte di Cavour was sunk in Taranto harbour

    Should these warships not have been sunk because they weren't sailing towards Portsmouth at the time?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    I have deep respect for Mossadeq and what the US/UK did to Iran in 1953 is morally and practically one of the worse acts of politics in peace time 20th century. But I must say, the current Iranian regime is the most brutal state since Stalin's USSR, and I stand by that.
    Fair point, but my point is that this new Iran has been pretty much the fault of ourselves for overthrowing a stable democracy to secure oil rights. The middle east (and the rest of the world) has been suspicious ever since

    I may not agree with Iran arming themselves (the same way I don't agree with the US arming themselves), but I can see why they are doing so
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    You have reached rock bottom and are continuing to dig.

    You have been nicely rolled by just about every other poster here re: Belgrano, yet you are still banging on.

    Just answer, what exactly was a warship such as the Belgrano doing out of its home port and hanging around the Falkland Islands - whether inside or out of the exclusion zone - in the first place, if not engaged in opportunistic or otherwise attempts at warfare?

    I suppose next you will be trying to argue it was on a pleasure cruise:confused:
    You're a bit late mate. That post is from an hour ago. Keep updated or don't waste my time by quoting me on something I admitted I was wrong on!
    I still stand by that she had failed or straight up unethical policies and views. But keep hugging a dictator supporter like Thatcher, I don't mind.

    Edit: Just saw your edit.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by de_monies)
    Fair point, but my point is that this new Iran has been pretty much the fault of ourselves for overthrowing a stable democracy to secure oil rights. The middle east (and the rest of the world) has been suspicious ever since

    I may not agree with Iran arming themselves (the same way I don't agree with the US arming themselves), but I can see why they are doing so
    Sadly throughout history those people in power put money,land and wealth above human life - how many wars have been motivated by greed for land/money/wealth
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Unless there was a contraction of 9% in 1991, the Thatcher figures are still lower. And I included 1991 in the Thatcher figures because I'd counted 1979 as pre-Thatcher (I wasn't sure what point in each year the stats are from).
    Except she wasn't Prime Minister in 1991. Any part of 1991. And as I said, the ONS contradicts your figures.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    How did you work that out?
    The figures I just gave you a link to. 44 quarters under Thatcher of an accumulated 30.7% growth, compared with 26.5% for the 44 quarters preceding her.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NotMyToothbrush)
    School used to give out free milk?
    It wasn't very nice. The milk wasn't kept in a fridge.

    The free orange juice from the welfare clinic was much nicer.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    There's a difference between what you say those leaders said - "she played a major role in the ending of the cold war" and what I said - that she "did not win the cold war". Of course she played a role. The point is - did she really want it to end? I don't believe the hawks in Washington really did, it was too good for business and I don't believe she really did. They wanted a modified version of the cold war, with downscaling, but not abolition, of the nuclear weapons threat and a continued, but managed, gradually transforming Soviet Union. To be honest, given the chaos that emerged when Gorbachev was taken down and the madness into which Russia then descended and the ghastly Putin government that has subsequently emerged, I think her instinct to defend Gorbachev (who by no means wanted an end to the Soviet Union) and for gradualism in the ending of the Cold War was probably sound.

    My point about her not ending the Cold War was about the usual trumpeting of the Right that Greenham Common and the deployment of cruise missiles somehow "ended the Cold War". I was simply pointing out that it was Gorbie who ended it, nothing to do with all of that.

    Your jibe about me supporting Stasi-controlled E. Germany as a 'socialist' is pathetic. I hate the way the Soviet system was run and it was a wonderful day when the iron curtain came down. I was just pointing out that Maggie did not support reunification (doubtless for the reasons you state) and that was wrong and muddled. She had many skills and fine qualities, but she could be very wrong too.
    The only reason any Socialist hates Stalin and Mao is because they werent based off the successes of Capitalism, that is effectively what socialism is, What idiots believe to be the next stage after Capitalism. But what was Marx? His writings highlighted the forms of society form the likes of feudalism up to capitalism, he then imagined socialism but no country has ever naturally fallen into socialism, it is always forced, yet capitalism is completely natural.

    Also toward the earlier point, there is not much difference between playing a major role in ending something and ending it outright singularly, its common sense that no one could push a button and end the cold war, so what is the point in stating; ohh but Maggie Thatcher didnt end the Cold War, tis was mainly Gorbachev oh diddly!

    After the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Cold War was pretty doomed anyways, there was no fighting during the cold war between the USA and USSR, therefore so what if Maggie thought it good to perhaps prolong it if it was good for business? The risk was minimal.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bunnyonthehill)
    Good on you, sir!
    Thanks!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by de_monies)
    Fair point, but my point is that this new Iran has been pretty much the fault of ourselves for overthrowing a stable democracy to secure oil rights. The middle east (and the rest of the world) has been suspicious ever since

    I may not agree with Iran arming themselves (the same way I don't agree with the US arming themselves), but I can see why they are doing so
    We're on the same page then, couldn't agree more.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The Bismark was sailing to St Nazaire when it was sunk. The Tirpitz was in Tromso Fjord when it was sunk. The Conte di Cavour was sunk in Taranto harbour

    Should these warships not have been sunk because they weren't sailing towards Portsmouth at the time?
    Read my response to fullofsurprises.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Read my response to fullofsurprises.
    Noted
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Twelve million were in poverty, gaps between rich and poor were increased
    Twelve million were in relative poverty. Gaps between the rich and the poor are frankly irrelevant if the poor are getting richer. I swear from the sounds of it some on the left would be happy if the poor lost 10% of their wealth so long as the rich lost 20%.

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Regarding the Belgrano, I admit defeat. Sort off. It proves her personality, I'm not sure she knew about any orders but still ordered the sinking.
    It proves her personality? What, that of someone who places the lives and safety of her own troops above that of the enemy? Shock horror!!!

    She was personally advised by the commander of the taskforce, Admiral Woodward, that the Belgrano was still engaged in a pincer movement. That's why she ordered the sinking.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Twelve million were in relative poverty. Gaps between the rich and the poor are frankly irrelevant if the poor are getting richer. I swear from the sounds of it some on the left would be happy if the poor lost 10% of their wealth so long as the rich lost 20%.
    Fullofsurprises is going to love you.

    I was discussing relative poverty with her last night, and she was objecting to my defining poverty in the UK as 'relative poverty'

    (Original post by fullofsurprises)
    Benefits are notoriously set at low levels - many children are still being raised in poverty, despite your assertions, so plainly the milk and honey of the benefits system does not flow quite as thickly as you and the Daily Mail would like us to believe.
    http://www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures

    Poverty has widely accepted definitions that all governments agree to use, even the current one. Perhaps they don't satisfy Marcus Fox, or the Mail, but that is hardly scientific.

    Oh right, poverty is all just invented by some ghastly conspiracy. Yeah.
    Putting the irony of those indignant hysterics aside, she objects to me calling it 'relative poverty' and then goes on to provide a CPAG link that defines it as exactly that.

    There are 3.6 million children living in poverty in the UK today. That’s 27 per cent of children, or more than one in four.
    And the reference? "Households Below Average Income, An analysis of the income distribution 1994/95 – 2010/11, Tables 4.1tr and 4.3tr. Department for Work and Pensions, 2012"

    PMSL.

    What does she think "Households Below Average Income" actually means? Just as I said, the definition of someone in poverty in the UK is simply someone who is earning below average income.

    Although she should be happier to hear that although the nasty Coalition's policies have caused median incomes to fall drastically during the economic downturn, which means that everyone is less well off, according to the way the statistics used by CPAG are assessed against average income, there are now actually less people in "poverty", even though their living standards have dropped!

    Raise the average wage, meaning that more people are better off, the population of the UK isn't going to change by any meaningful amount, so more people will be below the median line, and consequently be in 'poverty'. You could not make it up!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Twelve million were in relative poverty. Gaps between the rich and the poor are frankly irrelevant if the poor are getting richer. I swear from the sounds of it some on the left would be happy if the poor lost 10% of their wealth so long as the rich lost 20%.



    It proves her personality? What, that of someone who places the lives and safety of her own troops above that of the enemy? Shock horror!!!

    She was personally advised by the commander of the taskforce, Admiral Woodward, that the Belgrano was still engaged in a pincer movement. That's why she ordered the sinking.
    Yes that makes it so much better, it's only "relative" poverty. The poor getting richer? Under Thatcher? You must be trolling. Visit the north.
    Widening class gaps is very much an issue! Where do you think crime comes from? You have no clue about how human psychology works.

    Stop putting words in my mouth before writing "shock horror", you keep doing it and it doesn't get less annoying for each time.

    She supported Saddam. And Pinochet. If that doesn't say anything about her personality then what will?!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Yes that makes it so much better, it's only "relative" poverty. The poor getting richer? Under Thatcher? You must be trolling.
    The irony of relative poverty is easily demonstrated.

    It is defined as people receiving less than the median income.

    Accept as the basis of the argument that the population of the UK doesn't significantly change when doing your comparison.

    At a certain median income, those below the line will be defined as being in relative poverty and those above it won't.

    Raise the median income so that on average, more people will be better off as on average they will have higher wages than they did before, more will be below the median line and so more will be defined as being in 'poverty'.

    Lower the median income so that on average, more will be worse off, less people will be below the median line for the same reasoning as above and consequently less will be defined as being in 'poverty'

    Relative poverty is a modern invention designed to try to evade the awkward fact that a country like the UK essentially has no poverty (or, in the odd case which might be demonstrated, has a way of relieving it which has not been resorted to).

    Relative poverty can conveniently can never be eradicated, so will always brought up by the left and the indigent in society when people claim for themselves or some special interest group that they are in 'poverty' so more benefits are required.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by consumed by stuff)
    she also had nothing to do with the falklands.

    loved catholics and really respected the irish.

    she also supported the unions and hated the middle class.

    her favourite country was wales and her favourite stone was coal.

    she was even the patron saint of the north.
    Are you trolling?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)


    Relative poverty is a modern invention designed to try to evade the awkward fact that a country like the UK essentially has no poverty (or, in the odd case which might be demonstrated, has a way of relieving it which has not been resorted to).

    I totally agree with your post.

    But what is the way that hasn't been resorted too?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Margaret Thatcher did NOT destroy British industry.
    Manufacturing output actually increased under her watch.
    It seems she closed down the unprofitable parts and her tax cuts allowed the profitable parts to thrive
    news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1475644.stm
    When she was Education Secretary she argued against cutting school milk for 7-11 year olds. But as she was the minister she took the rap!

    Ironically it was Labour that removed school milk from secondary school students in 1968!

    Please feel free to add some more
    It seems as though we have found more points on which to agree. My grandmother - at the time very much a member of the working class - frequently cites her debt to Thatcher; Thatcher's allowing people to buy council houses meant that she was able to both buy and sell her own, allowing her some upward mobility, economically and, as a result, socially. Without knowing a lot about it, I also believe that the reducing of the union's power was a good thing. From what I can glean they had far too much power, and that was hugely detrimental to the country.

    I think the biggest myth, having read a lot on her career today and yesterday, is that she 'hated the working classes'.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Are you trolling?
    Obviously...
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.