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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bluewater69)
    Indeed, which began under Gordon Brown's time as PM. The Labour government signed it off.

    Anyway I'll just leave this here. A nice fact check for Labour supporters who blame Thatcher for everything.




    ......The same week Thatcher dies, Ed Miliband breaks his wrist.
    Nice graph. But it doesn't tell the real story. Year in year since the end of the war manufacturing out put has increased in real terms.

    Your graph is just really showing that the service sector is growing more than manufacturing hence the reduction in the % of total GDP.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iLoveMyCatsx)
    Wtf you know how many people could be brought out of poverty with that?! How much new medical equipment could be bought by that? How that money could be used to make a difference in the medical field? How many more doctors and nurses could be trained? How many shelters could be built for the homeless? Thaaaaa faaaakkkk

    10 million blown on her funeral? When people have to raise money for all that i listed through charity?! Daa faaaaqqqqqq she's already dead that money is a waste god damn it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Not a lot
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Nice graph. But it doesn't tell the real story. Year in year since the end of the war manufacturing out put has increased in real terms.
    Well that's just not true. Industrial growth was abysmal under New Labour. It went into a two year recession in the early noughties.

    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Your graph is just really showing that the service sector is growing more than manufacturing hence the reduction in the % of total GDP.
    Notice how it declines less in 18 years under the Tories than it did in 13 years of Labour, despite economic growth, including the financial boom, being higher under the Tories? The Tories destroyed industry my arse.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Try this graph instead from the BBC...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1475644.stm

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OMGWTFBBQ)
    A public sector pay freeze while the private sector (which she championed) crumbles under the weight of heavy taxation, redundancies and an economy in freefall.

    My heart bleeds for her.

    Why shouldn't the wealth creator's tax money be spent on the only PM of modern times who put them first?
    Whats going on in the private sector is kind of irrelevant to the point. My mum gets a pay freeze because their isn't enough money in the public purse, but all of a sudden theres enough money to give maggie a ridiculously over the top funeral.

    It shouldn't be spent for a couple of reasons, firstly is a time of austerity, and as the government keeps saying "we're all in this together" and cuts are being made everywhere, but as soon as maggie pops her clogs we have loads of money to throw away. Secondly Thatcher supporters should hate this as is completely polar to thatcherism. Thirdly she shouldn't get a funeral like this as it is trying to create the illusion that this is some national tragedy and the entire nation is mourning the loss of a much loved national treasure. That's not true though, half the nation thought she was satan and even worse they have to pay for her funeral.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Well that's just not true. Industrial growth was abysmal under New Labour. It went into a two year recession in the early noughties.



    Notice how it declines less in 18 years under the Tories than it did in 13 years of Labour, despite economic growth, including the financial boom, being higher under the Tories? The Tories destroyed industry my arse.
    You're missing my point, or I haven't explained myself properly. (Probably the latter.)

    There's been a cry that Thatcher killed off the Manufacturing industry, which she didn't. Infact, manufacturing ouput has increased year on year since the end of world war two.

    Name:  untitled.png
Views: 65
Size:  3.2 KB

    What you're graph was showing was a decline in manufacturing as a percentage of the overall GDP. Basically Maufacturing hasn't grown at the same rate as the service sector.

    This is for many reasons.

    1) Manufacturing requires a higher degree of capital investment. In many cases the return on the investment will give a higher return if invested in the service sector. (Just think, you need to invest in people and machines for the service sector. Mainly it's just people in teh service sector.

    2) When looking at our labour productivity numbers. We lag behind a lot of other nations.
    http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=uk+...57147216796875

    Now remember that our productivity levels also incorporate big hitters such as the city of London and North Sea oil. So in fact, our productivity levels are actually lower than what the OECD gives in a general comparison when looking at like for like with other nations.

    3) Even though I come from a background where my father is a huge supporter of the trade union movement and keeps banging on about how Thatcher killed the manufacturing base. As soon as I took a job in manufacturing because I realised how important it was for a balanced economy, he was mortified that I'd done it as I could make more money in the service sector.

    4) There are huge successes in UK manufacturing. Japanese owned car plants in the UK are some of the most profitable in the world. They are because they operated Japanese principals of automation (The trade Unions were against that) and kept the unions at bay.


    Overall though I do agree with your comments about Labour. They were more than happy to carry on with Tory Policies, but more worringly, rather than just carrying on with them, they pushed them too far especially when Gordon Brown let go of the control of the Bank of England.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Whats going on in the private sector is kind of irrelevant to the point. My mum gets a pay freeze because their isn't enough money in the public purse, but all of a sudden theres enough money to give maggie a ridiculously over the top funeral.

    It shouldn't be spent for a couple of reasons, firstly is a time of austerity, and as the government keeps saying "we're all in this together" and cuts are being made everywhere, but as soon as maggie pops her clogs we have loads of money to throw away. Secondly Thatcher supporters should hate this as is completely polar to thatcherism. Thirdly she shouldn't get a funeral like this as it is trying to create the illusion that this is some national tragedy and the entire nation is mourning the loss of a much loved national treasure. That's not true though, half the nation thought she was satan and even worse they have to pay for her funeral.
    As public sector wages are paid out of the tax receipts of the wealth-creating private sector, it is entirely relevant.


    1. "We're all in this together" is populist rhetoric and you should see through it for what it is. These cuts are economically necessary and ideologically sound, don't be distracted by snippets like this. £10mill is nothing compared to the UK budget. Even if this wasn't a state funded funeral, huge sums of taxpayer's money would be spend on security anyway.
    2. Honouring the dead is not the antithesis to Thatcherism. Look at the economic cost of the Falkland's campaign and the year-on-year increase in state spending under her watch - there is more to Thatcher than just economics. Her championing of the Open University is another great accomplishment that goes unacknowledged by the left. Social mobility was high on her agenda.
    3. Thatcher was elected to three terms with an unquestionable mandate each time. Far more than half the nation approve of her legacy, there is a very vocal (and often misinformed) minority which doesn't recognise her for the hero she was - and most of these are net recipients of state funding anyway so I'm not sure why they have such an interest in spending all of a sudden.



    Edit: replaced "aren't taxpayers" with "are net recipients of state funding"
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    You're missing my point, or I haven't explained myself properly. (Probably the latter)
    Nah, I thought you were defending the decline in industry under Labour. Turns out we're on the same wavelength then.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know but I'm pissed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Disgusting.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scumbaggio)
    Disgusting.
    The left wing reaction? Completely agree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Whats going on in the private sector is kind of irrelevant to the point. My mum gets a pay freeze because their isn't enough money in the public purse, but all of a sudden theres enough money to give maggie a ridiculously over the top funeral.

    It shouldn't be spent for a couple of reasons, firstly is a time of austerity, and as the government keeps saying "we're all in this together" and cuts are being made everywhere, but as soon as maggie pops her clogs we have loads of money to throw away. Secondly Thatcher supporters should hate this as is completely polar to thatcherism. Thirdly she shouldn't get a funeral like this as it is trying to create the illusion that this is some national tragedy and the entire nation is mourning the loss of a much loved national treasure. That's not true though, half the nation thought she was satan and even worse they have to pay for her funeral.
    OK so I did some quick maths and the cost per person is about 15p so isn't going to empty people's pockets. 2nd, the public sector pay freeze - sure 10 mil could be spread over the civil service, but lets say there's 200k civil servants currently with a pay freeze, that's only £50 quid each per year extra. As much as I'd love to give civil servants with a pay freeze more money, the fact is it would take way more than 10 million to have a measurable increase on their pay.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    The left wing reaction? Completely agree.
    No.

    Spending that amount of money on the funeral is disgusting.

    I'm not particularly left wing either.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    The left need to calm down and approach this situation in a rational, logical way rather than getting overly emotional.

    I would expect her family are making a fair contribution to the cost to the funeral. Sure, maybe it's only £10k or something, but this will cover the normal costs of a funeral. The inevitable extra costs are brought about as a result of the government out of control of the family and it would not be fair to use up all of her estate to pay for her funeral.

    The government has to give Thatcher a ceremonial funeral at a cost of £10m because:

    - Many famous international leaders past/present will be attending the funeral and therefore a high level of security is required. This can only really be managed and financed by the state.

    - Many Thousands of people will want to pay their respects to Thatcher. So, we need to have some sort of parade (sorry wrong word, can't think of the right one) to allow people to do this. Again this requires security and management costs.

    - Many Thousands of people will want to protest against Thatcher. The management of this will again cause inevitable costs.


    -----
    £10m isn't really that much when you think about it. Around 15-20p per person. And, I think there's a pretty good chance that this event will cause a net benefit to the economy because:

    - Thousands of people will travel to London and spend money that they otherwise wouldn't have spent. 100k people go to London and spend £50 on average, we've got £5million back. When you add up travel expenses, food expenses, tourism, hotels etc this isn't an unreasonable estimate.

    - This is exactly the sort of ceremony that foreigners love about Britain. Britain will be on the News across the world. With all the pomp and ceremony and old-fashionedness that (bizarrely) attracts foreigners this is going to be a fairly good free advert for Britain Plc. Keeps up our reputation that people like. Some people will book holidays to Britain in the summer just because they saw this on the news. This must definitely be worth £1m+. Could quite easily be a lot more too.

    - Think of the potential value of getting so many experienced global politicians together in a relaxed environment at the function after the funeral. Some old wise politician has a chat with Cameron and Cameron learns something. Cameron realises a small policy mistake. Afterwards he make this small adjustment and saves £10m. Maybe it is a chance for our politicians to build better connections, which also has a monetary value.


    ----

    So, in conclusion:

    - Those who want to pay their respects (and protest) can do so thanks to the £10m investment.

    - This event is highly likely to create a net benefit to the UK Economy.

    - Go and find something else to whine about.

    -
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scumbaggio)
    No.

    Spending that amount of money on the funeral is disgusting.

    I'm not particularly left wing either.
    You should probably have a word with all those nasty protesters who cause issues with security, then. Without them the costs would be much, much cheaper.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Habibul Bashar)
    The left need to calm down and approach this situation in a rational, logical way rather than getting overly emotional.

    I would expect her family are making a fair contribution to the cost to the funeral. Sure, maybe it's only £10k or something, but this will cover the normal costs of a funeral. The inevitable extra costs are brought about as a result of the government out of control of the family and it would not be fair to use up all of her estate to pay for her funeral.

    The government has to give Thatcher a ceremonial funeral at a cost of £10m because:

    - Many famous international leaders past/present will be attending the funeral and therefore a high level of security is required. This can only really be managed and financed by the state.

    - Many Thousands of people will want to pay their respects to Thatcher. So, we need to have some sort of parade (sorry wrong word, can't think of the right one) to allow people to do this. Again this requires security and management costs.

    - Many Thousands of people will want to protest against Thatcher. The management of this will again cause inevitable costs.


    -----
    £10m isn't really that much when you think about it. Around 15-20p per person. And, I think there's a pretty good chance that this event will cause a net benefit to the economy because:

    - Thousands of people will travel to London and spend money that they otherwise wouldn't have spent. 100k people go to London and spend £50 on average, we've got £5million back. When you add up travel expenses, food expenses, tourism, hotels etc this isn't an unreasonable estimate.

    - This is exactly the sort of ceremony that foreigners love about Britain. Britain will be on the News across the world. With all the pomp and ceremony and old-fashionedness that (bizarrely) attracts foreigners
    this is going to be a fairly good free advert for Britain Plc. Keeps up our reputation that people like. Some people will book holidays to Britain in the summer just because they saw this on the news. This must definitely be worth £1m+. Could quite easily be a lot more too.

    - Think of the potential value of getting so many experienced global politicians together in a relaxed environment at the function after the funeral. Some old wise politician has a chat with Cameron and Cameron learns something. Cameron realises a small policy mistake. Afterwards he make this small adjustment and saves £10m. Maybe it is a chance for our politicians to build better connections, which also has a monetary value.


    ----

    So, in conclusion:

    - Those who want to pay their respects (and protest) can do so thanks to the £10m investment.

    - This event is highly likely to create a net benefit to the UK Economy.

    - Go and find something else to whine about.

    -
    I've always thought that foreigners liked our 'old fashioned' parades etc as they hark back to a time when we were much surer and confident/proud of our national identity. Foreigners want a tangible culture to associate with Britain and we've been blurring the lines of how we define British culture for the last 60 years or so ( IMO ).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    You should probably have a word with all those nasty protesters who cause issues with security, then. Without them the costs would be much, much cheaper.
    It'd be much cheaper for the Thatchers to pay for the funeral.

    I'm sure she was worth £9 million when she died.

    A private and much smaller funeral PAID FOR BY THE THATCHERS would be much more appropriate.

    Thatcher also stipulated that wanted the prime minister of the day to speak at her funeral. What a joke.

    A truly disgusting use of public money and whether you lean to the left or the right you surely must see that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scumbaggio)
    It'd be much cheaper for the Thatchers to pay for the funeral.

    I'm sure she was worth £9 million when she died.

    A private and much smaller funeral PAID FOR BY THE THATCHERS would be much more appropriate.

    Thatcher also stipulated that wanted the prime minister of the day to speak at her funeral. What a joke.

    A truly disgusting use of public money and whether you lean to the left or the right you surely must see that.
    If it was a smaller funeral those who want to pay respects/protest would not be able to exercise their right to do so to such an extent would you not agree?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    If it was a smaller funeral those who want to pay respects/protest would not be able to exercise their right to do so to such an extent would you not agree?
    I'm not sure you have the right to attend someone's funeral just because you feel you should be able to pay your respects.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scumbaggio)
    It'd be much cheaper for the Thatchers to pay for the funeral.

    I'm sure she was worth £9 million when she died.

    A private and much smaller funeral PAID FOR BY THE THATCHERS would be much more appropriate.

    Thatcher also stipulated that wanted the prime minister of the day to speak at her funeral. What a joke.

    A truly disgusting use of public money and whether you lean to the left or the right you surely must see that.
    Unfortunately for you lots of big reputation people want to pay their respects to a good friend. That comes alongside security arrangements.

    Also agree with the above post.

    And no, I don't agree with you.
 
 
 
  • 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 like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • 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

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