Renationalisation

[Braineater]

I think it's about time the main industries came back to central control. When Thatcher killed industry, she had nothing to back it up and I see the social and economic fallout from this everyday. I'm sure she could've had her Libertarian revolution without antagonising the Unions or wrecking peoples lives.

In 1997, I thought "thing really can only get better".

Labour has let the old working classes/lower middle classes down big time.

We've seen our Steel industry fall into Dutch hands and wither away.

The railways have without a doubt got worse under privitisation.

Our car "industry" is now either directly or indirectly in foreign hands.

Labours spin on the employment figures is a below the belt blow.

Steelwork used to be a well paid job, it still is where it exists.

So why are those who could be building the foundations for a future Britain now working in McJobs?

We have a great economy now, but we could secure our future when the consumer bubble bursts by renationalising the hard industries.

[the sole liber]

Thatcher libertarian?? Bullshit!

And why is there THE NEED to renationalise former state utilities??

[Aladdin]

1. Because they are run more effectively and better

2. Because the emphasis is put in improving the service, not in lining the pockets of shareholders

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by the sole liber
Thatcher libertarian?? Bullshit!

Economically she was. Socially she was an authoratarian.

Originally posted by the sole liber
And why is there THE NEED to renationalise former state utilities??

Because the national infrastructure should not be in private hands. It should be run for the benefit of society,

[Man Of Kent]

Under state control, many of these services were in efficient and so I can understand why some should remain in private hands.

That said, I have never understood why services affecting the whole national infrastructure, and water particluarly, are better served by private business

[Aladdin]

They ain't. Especially considering that train and water companies almost always have monopolies- they're the only ones providing the service to their business areas.

There have been too many incidents to mention where the pure greed of private companies has had a negative impact in the service provided. From the water company that reduced the pressure of the water when being told to reduce the amount of water lost through leaks instead of spending money repairing the network... to the train service that cancelled all weekday services to some Welsh town because "the curvature of the station makes it impossible for trains to stop and receive passangers". Incredibly weekend services were left running, presumably because at weekends the station mysteriously straightened itself... :rolleyes:

I might argue the case for BA... but no water, train, bus, underground, health, air traffic control service should be run by private enterprises.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Braineater


In 1997, I thought "thing really can only get better".


ow thats a cracker that is!!!!!

they meant things only can worser..............

[Aladdin]

Things did get better under Labour. This nobody, not even the most radical Tory could possibly deny.

Another argument is whether things are now getting worse than they were 3 years ago. But for the first 4 years of the Labour government there were improvements everywhere... and in some areas there are still improvements today.

My grudge against New Labour is not so much against their domestic record as their foreign policy, humilliating submission to a certain other nation and thier abandonment of left wing politics.

[the sole liber]

Originally posted by lukesh
ow thats a cracker that is!!!!!

they meant things only can worser..............

New Labour failed to drastically improve public services in the first term. Their only acheivements in this period were constitutional ones like devolution, Human Rights Act, removal of most of hereditary peers, etc.

[Kermit]

As always, the argument about Keynesian economics comes down to an argument a five-year-old would be ashamed of.

As with everything, there are good and bad things.

Take railways. Whilst everyone is bleating about how expenisve the railway is, nobody takes a moment to look at GNER, who operate the main London- Leeds- Newcastle- Edinburgh line. They have increased services, brought in new trains, and pay £20million a year to the Treasury. But the success is always conveniently forgotten.

A lot of industries that were privatised were right to be. British Airways are better as a private company, Rover are better as a private company, BAe are better as a private company. The coal is no worse in private hands than it was in national hands, despite the moaning of the NUM; the telecom industry is no worse in private hands, and nor are the suppliers of gas and electricity.

However, a lot of things should never be about profit. The postal service shouldn't be, the water shouldn't be, the gas and electricity infrastructure shouldn't be, and nor should the railway infrastructure. I'm still undecided about the buses, to be quite honest; the buses are crap, but no worse than in the days of the National Bus Company. National Express have certainly improved since privatisation, at any rate.

Unfortunately it does depend on whether you believe that the state should provide literally everything, and hang the expense, or if private initiative is better. In key services, such as education, health, the utilities and transport as a general rule nationalisation is the way to go; in industry and the service sector privatisation is the way to go. Like it or not, profit is the only incentive people have to do well and be efficient; look at Rover now, and compare them to the pathetic, militant, British Leyland.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Braineater
. I'm sure she could've had her Libertarian revolution without antagonising the Unions or wrecking peoples lives.

The Unions had had to coming to them for fifteen years, and they deserved what happened to them. People were sick and tired of three-day weeks, of having no heating during the winter, of having their electricity turned off at 10.30 in the evening. People were sick of the militant Unionists bending the country over a barrel in the name of pure greed, and people were sick of being held to ransom so that the unionists could get their huge pay rises, paid for by extortionately high levels of taxation.

The Unions deserved to be killed off, because they thought that they were a law unto themselves. Thatcher told them that they were not, and made them behave.

It is regrettable what has happened since then, especially in the former mining areas, but the NUM caused it with their illegal strike. By the time the NUM realised that they had lost all the power stations had switched to Romanian and Australian coal because it was cheaper and could be relied upon to arrive.

I do think the balance has swung too far the other way now, and workers and jobs are not protected like they should be, but the simple fact is that trade unionism has no place in a decent society, because it is all about holding the country to ransom until they get their own way. Sometimes I support the cause of the strikers, like with the Fire Brigade, sometimes I think the strikers should be instantly dismissed to teach them a lesson about greed, but the fact remains that a decent country cannot afford to be held hostage by a small group of people, like it was in the late 1970s.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Aladdin
But for the first 4 years of the Labour government there were improvements everywhere

Apropos of nothing, for the first three years of the Labour administration it was Conservative spending and taxation plans that were followed. And much as the most rabid Labour supporter would try to deny it, it's all in black and white. The only major distractions from this were the issue of university funding, and then Blair brought in tuition fees and loans not grants, something that even Thatcher had the decency to avoid; and the issue of welfare payments to single mothers, that were cut drastically.

And I haven't even got around to mentioning PFI, fraud and corruption going right to the door of No. 10, the dismembering of the House of Lords to suit Princess Tony's political ambitions (a HoL with no power suits Bliar right down to the ground, don't expect any change in a hurry), the fiasco of Frank Field being told to "think the unthinkable" then being sacked for doing so, and so on...

[Aladdin]

Two words: Minimum Wage.

Now, as far as I'm concerned they don't go far enough. But that was just about the only true Labour policy introduced, and the most significant.

They've at least started to reform the Lords (though again, the reform doesn't go far enough) and implemented devolution. And regardless of the free market fundamentalists' cries to the contrary, the NHS is improving.

More remarkable achievements than I can think of in 18 years of Tory rule.

[wheresmyplacebo]

lots of things are better now they're privatised, ie BA, Roveretc but there were things that shouldnt have been nationalised to begin with...

however things where the companies have virtual monopolies and that we neeed ALL over the country, ie railways, house to house postal services, water

and kermit said about GNER, okay their trains are crap but im sure when BR was around they were just as bad but least GNER are reliable etc
that is why i dont see why the underground had to have PPP because it actually made quite a profit everyyear, going back into london government so i dont see why its better off in shareholders pockets

[Aladdin]

For many decades British Rail was the best railway network in the world. It was only through the deliberate underfunding it received during the last 40 years of its life that the service was cash-starved and eventually deteriorated it to the present state.

British Rail proved it could run its trains on time, keep its rolling stock in good condition and mantain the railways in operating condition without breaking sweat.

For every 'successful' story of an efficient private train operator there are dozens of horror tales of innefficiency, delays and cancellations. And let's not forget the immense subsidies the private companies have received since privatisation (without which they would have gone bankrupt rather rapidly) and the massive hikes in ticket prices they have been allowed to carry out. And all of that for zero improvement in most services and an actual deterioration in some.

Those responsible for train privatisation should suffer a slow and painful death.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
and kermit said about GNER, okay their trains are crap but im sure when BR was around they were just as bad but least GNER are reliable etc

GNER have just spent £10million refurbishing all their trains that were bought just before privatisation by British Rail. GNER paid for it.

Aladdin, the actual TOCs are an irrelevance when it comes to the privatised railway. The TOCs don't tend to get much more subsidy than they did under British Rail, rural lines need heavy subsidy regardless of who operates them. The big cost of rail privatisation has been elsewhere- the TOCs are a smokescreen.

What you won't read in the papers is why the TOCs need to be subsidised more. Under British Rail the trains were owned by the people who ran them, i.e. BR, but Major, in his infinite wisdom, sorry, moronicness, decided to sell all the rolling stock to leasing companies, and then get the TOCs to rent them back. A two-carriage class 142 "Pacer" (the ones that are a bus on train wheels) costs nearly as much to rent for a year now as it did to build the damn thing in the first place. The extra subsidy is going into the back pockets of, among others, the HSBC, who own one of the leasing companies.

The other big cost hike has been infrastructure. British Rail did all it's own engineering, and it was cost-effective- the East Coast Main Line was electrified and modernised for a fraction of the cost of the West Coast "modernisation", and it was done to time and to budget. But when Railtrack was privatised it "out-sourced" all it's engineering division to our good friends at Jarvis and Balfour Beatty, and, would you believe it, costs shot up as quality shot down. Railtrack couldn't choose another company to do it as all the old BR staff were now at Jarvis and Balfour, so market forces meant those companies could charge what they wanted, and they did.

The Underground privatisation won't make the same mistake, because the lines are being leased off lock, stock and barrel, rather than in little pieces; but because of that, there doesn't actually seem to be much point in doing it at all.

Basically PFI is the Governmental version of "buy now, pay later". It means they don't have to find the money now, and they don't have to borrow now- just pay a private company back for building the hospital, school, tramway, whatever. And we will pay it back- several times over.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Aladdin
It was only through the deliberate underfunding it received during the last 40 years of its life that the service was cash-starved and eventually deteriorated it to the present state.

And that goes for all the political parties, not just the Conservatives. When huge swathes of the national rail network were closed in the 1960s it was under a Labour government, though everyone seems to forget that Beeching was a Labour appointee brought in to "inspire better business practices".

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Two words: Minimum Wage.

Two words: European Union. If the minimum wage hadn't been part of the Social Chapter we wouldn't have one.

They've at least started to reform the Lords (though again, the reform doesn't go far enough) and implemented devolution.

They haven't started to "reform" the HoL at all, they've just hacked all the opponents of Labour out of it. Blair won't take the reform any further because it isn't in his interests to; the rump HoL has lost it's teeth.

Though I will grant you devolution, it hasn't exactly been a total success. Will the Cardiff Bay building ever get built?

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by Kermit
Two words: European Union. If the minimum wage hadn't been part of the Social Chapter we wouldn't have one.
Had the Tories been in power I very much doubt the minimum wage would have been implemented, EU or not EU.

They haven't started to "reform" the HoL at all, they've just hacked all the opponents of Labour out of it. Blair won't take the reform any further because it isn't in his interests to; the rump HoL has lost it's teeth. If getting rid of an ante-diluvian system whereby people earned their right to become Lords and sit in the chamber by accident of birth is not a reform, you tell me what it is.

Blair might have done it for the wrong reasons, but a reform was indeed needed. Who can deny that Lords were an elitist, closed chamber deeply out of touch with public opinion and completely unfair in the way new members were chosen?

Though I will grant you devolution, it hasn't exactly been a total success. Will the Cardiff Bay building ever get built? No, probably not... And the devolution hasn't been perfect either (the issue of Scottish MPs voting on English issues in parliament remains, for instance).

The reforms have been imperfect (some of them highly imperfect) but they are welcome developements nonetheless.

And let's not forget the odious Section 28, finally repelled despite fierce oppostions from the usual suspects.

Still, I'm still deeply unhappy with some of the government's domestic record (I won't even mention the foreign policy), such as their broken promise to renationalise the railways or their lack of muscle in pushing through a ban on fox hunting. But I still believe they have achieved more for Britain than the Tories had in the previous 18 years.

[Teagan]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Things did get better under Labour. This nobody, not even the most radical Tory could possibly deny.

Things were better under the Torys too which no Labour member could deny ... like reformation of the unions. So it's all swings and round-a-bouts really ...

Originally posted by Aladdin
Another argument is whether things are now getting worse than they were 3 years ago. But for the first 4 years of the Labour government there were improvements everywhere... and in some areas there are still improvements today.

'Some' areas perhaps but not the majority of areas. The best thing that Labour has done was pass the responsibility of keeping inflation down to the Bank of England. Everything else they have touched seems to have turned to dust in spite of higher taxation etc

Originally posted by Aladdin
My grudge against New Labour is not so much against their domestic record as their foreign policy, humilliating submission to a certain other nation and thier abandonment of left wing politics.

My grudge is that they cannot sort out this country first before trying to sort out the business of others ...

[Teagan]

Originally posted by Aladdin
And regardless of the free market fundamentalists' cries to the contrary, the NHS is improving.

Not according to polls of NHS patients ...

Originally posted by Aladdin
More remarkable achievements than I can think of in 18 years of Tory rule.

The Torys got hugely arrogant over their three terms and deserved to lose. But they certainly put this country back on the right track after Labour and the Unions reduced the country to some third world state.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Teagan
Things were better under the Torys too which no Labour member could deny ... like reformation of the unions.

So the casualisation of labour, steady erosion of job security and employment rights, destruction of industry, rise of sweatshop conditions call centres etc etc. which were all a direct result of Thatcher's economic policies are a good thing? :eek: :rolleyes:

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by Teagan
Not according to polls of NHS patients ...
Where's MoK when you need him??? ;)

For what I've been hearing practically every report on the NHS in the last two years have shown improvements across the board.

At the risk of sounding patronising, asking the public or patients questions such as "do you think the NHS (or any other service) is improving?" a lot of people are going to say 'no' as an automatic response. It's what so many of us appear to do without thinking about it: assume that things were always better in the past and complain about it.

[Teagan]

Originally posted by Blagsta
So the casualisation of labour, steady erosion of job security and employment rights, destruction of industry, rise of sweatshop conditions call centres etc etc. which were all a direct result of Thatcher's economic policies are a good thing? :eek: :rolleyes:

Is that what I said? Hmmmm .... must have been a different post then.

What I thought I indicated was that the crushing of the confrontational, Marxist unions that bought misery to almost all Britons was a good thing. The Tory's problem was that they went to the other extreme ... but this was still far preferable to the times of the Winter of Discontent etc

[Teagan]

Originally posted by Aladdin
For what I've been hearing practically every report on the NHS in the last two years have shown improvements across the board.


That would be what you have been hearing from Labour no doubt ...

Originally posted by Aladdin
At the risk of sounding patronising, asking the public or patients questions such as "do you think the NHS (or any other service) is improving?" a lot of people are going to say 'no' as an automatic response. It's what so many of us appear to do without thinking about it: assume that things were always better in the past and complain about it.

That is patronising. They are entitled to vote so they should be entitled to complain when it's justified.

And why should we not complain just because it's not fashionable to be tired of Labour? Don't forget Eccleston, Keith Vaz, Mandelson, the underselling of our gold reserves, stealth taxes etc etc ... and culminating in a war that we did not want. Life is not really any better under Labour.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[Aladdin]

I agree that at present the Lords are as undesirable a chamber as they were before.

Where the best solution lies I'm not sure. I would say a fully elected second chamber, or at least the complete eradication of hereditary peers.

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by Teagan
That is patronising. They are entitled to vote so they should be entitled to complain when it's justified.

And why should we not complain just because it's not fashionable to be tired of Labour? Don't forget Eccleston, Keith Vaz, Mandelson, the underselling of our gold reserves, stealth taxes etc etc ... and culminating in a war that we did not want. Life is not really any better under Labour. What I meant, and this is surely something you can imagine, is that the natural reaction for most people when asked 'do you think the NHS/transport/any other public services/quality of life/etc etc has improved?', is to say 'no'.

This 'good old days' attitude is well documented and ever-present, and applied equally to areas where improvements have been made as much as areas where things have indeed gone worse. It's just the way we are.

The reports in question have been released over the last year or so. Some of them undoubtedly come from the government and some come from independent watchdog bodies. MoK has posted several of such reports, and the majority seem to indicate that things are indeed getting better across the board.

Bear in mind that for every 'patient left in trolley for 18 hours' incident plastered gratuitously on every tabloid there are a hundred unreported cases of excellent performance and praise from patients. Unfortunately these cases don't sell as much copy and don't serve certain agendas well, so they're ignored.

[Jim V]

Originally posted by Aladdin
or at least the complete eradication of hereditary peers.

Surely your not suggesting it would be better to have a second house providing checks on the executive that were all selected by the executive themselves? That's not a step in the right direct, it's the very worst outcome. I can't help feel you'd have more chance of convincing a lord who got his seat 500 years ago of something that was wrong in a government bill than a member who was appointed last Tuesday by Blair.

[Aladdin]

How about being elected by the public (just as MPs are)?

[Jim V]

no problem with that, just concerned that at the moment there seems to be a drive to remove people without replacing them.

Be nice to see local elections that banned all political party involvement or PR.

[LabRat]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Economically she was [ libertarian]. Socially she was an authoratarian.

I don’t know what to do, to cry or to laugh. Thatcher as an economical libertarian?!! This level of ignorance is not acceptable even for left-wing forums!!
Thatcher was a typical socialist and she shared all Marxist hate to individual freedom. The only thing that stands her above other European and British politicians is her intellect. She understood clearly the deepness of the ditch UK was rolling into and she didn’t want British parasitic classes to lose their incomes because they would have to feed on a poor population. I don’t know whether she knew about sad experience of Argentina and Uruguay ( one of the main lessons of 20th century… that nobody wants to learn from) but her strategy was right and she managed to add a drop of living blood to the dying body of welfare state. That saved UK from falling into Third World and made it much more dynamic, growing and prosperous society than its European stoned neighbours France and Germany. That also made her a hero among many politicians, journalists, economists over the world. She was and she is like a teacher for many progressive-( as they think about themselves) -thinking intellectuals in Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America.
The world is getting smarter and its ruling castes are not exception. Old-fashioned “leaders of the people” trying to “turn the country into one big factory” look like monsters nowadays, rulers of Thatcher and Pinochet style are in favour in any corner of the world while Mussolini-Roosevelt type looks idiotic for non-European intellectuals and can earn applause only in Euro-Politburo ( and its small subdivisions like British Parliament). It took seven thousand years only from pharaoh Hufu to Maggie Thatcher to realize that a fat cow gives more milk… really a progress.
But how can people name her a libertarian? It’s above my understanding. Is this a result of mental laziness, state-controlled education, complete absence of life experience, media brainwashing or anything else? Her modest reforms in ways of governing are named ’privatisation’, ’free market economy’, ’revolution’ even…
Are You ( I don’t mean The Sole Liber of course) SERIOUSELY Think Margaret Thatcher Was A Free-Market Libertarian?

[wheresmyplacebo]

the taxation burden under thatcher increased by almost 10% whilst useful public spending went down in efficiency cuts, hmm the ideal way of making money hmmmmmm

[Aladdin]

The only people who really benefited through the Tories' endless boom and bust periods were the very rich, shareholders and speculators.

The rest (i.e. about 80% of the population) actually ended up worse. Quite why anyone who is not a millionaire would want to support the Tories is really beyond me.

Talk about turkeys voting for Xmas...

[wheresmyplacebo]

EXACTLY
(apart from people who like think theyre middle class vote tory)

[Toadborg]

Originally posted by LabRat
Are You ( I don’t mean The Sole Liber of course) SERIOUSELY Think Margaret Thatcher Was A Free-Market Libertarian?

She reduced the state control on the market, created institutions and laws etc that allowed free functioning of markets?

If someone does this they clearly believe that freer markets are better than what existed before.

Just because she didn't completely remove the state or whatever bullshit you 'libertarians' would like to see doesn't mean she wasn't incline towards free markets.........

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by LabRat
I don’t know what to do, to cry or to laugh. Thatcher as an economical libertarian?!! This level of ignorance is not acceptable even for left-wing forums!!
Thatcher was a typical socialist and she shared all Marxist hate to individual freedom.
<snip>

I don't need to read anymore. Thatcher a socialist?
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! :D

You twat. :rolleyes:

[Blagsta]

Oh look

Thatcher's free market economics strengthened the overall economy and created a growing middle class, but widened the gap between rich and poor.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/10/newsid_2541000/2541071.stm
(italics mine)

[Blagsta]

And this

Her political and economic philosophy emphasised free markets and entrepreneurialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcher
(italics mine)

[Captain Slog]

Originally posted by Kermit
As always, the argument about Keynesian economics comes down to an argument a five-year-old would be ashamed of.

As with everything, there are good and bad things.

Take railways. Whilst everyone is bleating about how expenisve the railway is, nobody takes a moment to look at GNER, who operate the main London- Leeds- Newcastle- Edinburgh line. They have increased services, brought in new trains, and pay £20million a year to the Treasury. But the success is always conveniently forgotten.

A lot of industries that were privatised were right to be. British Airways are better as a private company, Rover are better as a private company, BAe are better as a private company. The coal is no worse in private hands than it was in national hands, despite the moaning of the NUM; the telecom industry is no worse in private hands, and nor are the suppliers of gas and electricity.

However, a lot of things should never be about profit. The postal service shouldn't be, the water shouldn't be, the gas and electricity infrastructure shouldn't be, and nor should the railway infrastructure. I'm still undecided about the buses, to be quite honest; the buses are crap, but no worse than in the days of the National Bus Company. National Express have certainly improved since privatisation, at any rate.

Unfortunately it does depend on whether you believe that the state should provide literally everything, and hang the expense, or if private initiative is better. In key services, such as education, health, the utilities and transport as a general rule nationalisation is the way to go; in industry and the service sector privatisation is the way to go. Like it or not, profit is the only incentive people have to do well and be efficient; look at Rover now, and compare them to the pathetic, militant, British Leyland.

My thoughts exactly. Yes it makes sense for utilities like gas and electricity to be nationalised monopolies, but the likes of Rover, which make consumer goods should be left in private hands.

The railways are a bit of a grey area. Ont he other hand they worked well enough in the pre-nationalisation "big four" era. The problem is the over-complicated structure created by the 1997 privatisation.

[Captain Slog]

Originally posted by Jim V
Surely your not suggesting it would be better to have a second house providing checks on the executive that were all selected by the executive themselves? That's not a step in the right direct, it's the very worst outcome. I can't help feel you'd have more chance of convincing a lord who got his seat 500 years ago of something that was wrong in a government bill than a member who was appointed last Tuesday by Blair.

I totally agree. Blair's "reforms" are nothing but a cynical attempt to fill the Lords with his own supporters.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Captain Slog
My thoughts exactly. Yes it makes sense for utilities like gas and electricity to be nationalised monopolies, but the likes of Rover, which make consumer goods should be left in private hands

I agree with that.

[Sgt Hicks]

atleast Thatcher did what she said , instead of blabbin on like blair and bush then doing many things completely oposite.

hicks

[Blagsta]

But what she did shafted whole communities of people, communities which still haven't recovered.

[Sgt Hicks]

but you must admit she did what she said she was going to do, never beat around the bush, and ther was a few things she did that were good, i think.


hicks

[Aladdin]

There is a limit to the value of honesty though. I'd rather have a liar who does a limited amount of damage than a brutally honest person who acts like a little despot and screws everyone over.

[Sgt Hicks]

i dont feel she screwed anyone over, at the time she thought she was doing the right thing,

like bush and the weapons of mass destruction, and

blair highering university top up fees,

similar things thinking they were doing the right thing but blatantly not doing the right thing at all.

hicks

[Blagsta]

Bollocks. She blatantly knew she was fucking the working class.
Same as Bush blatantly was gonna fuck Iraq, whatever the excuse and whatever the consequences.
Same as Blair will go along with whatever Bush wants even if he knows its wrong.

[Aladdin]

Thatcher was an evil witch from hell who single-handedly destroyed more families and increased poverty for more people than any other Prime Minister in British history.

An extremely nasty, ultra-right wing, god-bothering free market fundamentalist who couldn't give a fuck about the welfare of people (even by infamously denying there was such a thing as society :rolleyes: ) and who was the catalyst for the most inhuman and greed-driven period in modern Britain.

An apartheid and fascism apologist who counts racists and murderers as personal friends.

The champagne is on ice...

[Teagan]

I suppose that at least you knew where you stood with the Conservatives .... but who knows what the f*ck Labour are up to. For a party that is supposed to look out for the people, we've been shafted good and proper loads of time and if we raise any objections or point out these blatant shortcomings, we're branded as right wingers and Tories. I just want fair, open, honest governement and Labour are just not that.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Thatcher was an evil witch from hell who single-handedly destroyed more families and increased poverty for more people than any other Prime Minister in British history.

An extremely nasty, ultra-right wing, god-bothering free market fundamentalist who couldn't give a fuck about the welfare of people (even by infamously denying there was such a thing as society :rolleyes: ) and who was the catalyst for the most inhuman and greed-driven period in modern Britain.

An apartheid and fascism apologist who counts racists and murderers as personal friends.

The champagne is on ice... I think Labour and Tories have swapped places. Labour are now money lovers and Tories cate for their citizans.

And hey on Thatcher... it as time she was brought back!!!

[Aladdin]

The clock is ticking for the wicked witch. Perhpas she could pop her clogs on the same day as her chums Ronald Reagan and Augusto Pinochet.

Now that would be some celebration! :)

[ladymuck]

Thatcher was voted in 3 times with handsome majorities,never deposed by the People, her policies resonated with much of UK's populace.

Glug all the champagne you wish, she has her place in History, her detractors and imitators cannot take that away

It's a popular pose to wish the worst upon her, many who do were crawling in their nappies in her heyday

[Aladdin]

For every person who admires Thatcher in this country there are 3 haters.

And why wouldn't it be so? The woman fucked over 80% of the population. Child poverty went up from 20% to 33%. Etc etc.

The day she goes to hell will see the highest number of champagne corks flying outside Christmas in British history.

[ladymuck]

Aladdin
For every person who admires Thatcher in this country there are 3 haters

Source?

it might apply in certain circles but in UK population as a whole, I doubt it

[Aladdin]

Source? The real world.

The 3-to-1 ratio is probably innacurate-simply because I don't know the precise figures- but I don't have the slightlest doubt (and neither does anyone I know) that many more people hate her than admire her.

How could it be any other way? Who benefited from her policies and who was left worse off?

[Braineater]

Thatcher is arguably the Prime Minister who has come closest to being deposed by the people.

[Teagan]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Source? The real world.

Then how did she win 3 elections? The maths just don't add up ...

[Clandestine]

By disenfranchising opposition voters through the poll tax which many refused to pay and subsequently lost their right to vote.

I was working for the Tories in the European Parliament back in the day and recall vividly the upset there was amongst most Euro-Tories over this poll tax and the resultant removal of untold numbers from the voting registers either voluntarily or for failure to pay the tax.

Added to that the massive protests that followed (Trafalgar Square 1990, 300,000 people) essentially signalled the end of the Thatcher reign for all she tried to do to ensure it would never end.

The woman was, is and until her death shall always be a self absorbed demagogue with a lust for power. That she has managed to actively maintain a following in the Westminster Tory benches only goes to show how incapable she is of buggering off gracefully into the history books.

[ladymuck]

Aladdin
The 3-to-1 ratio is probably innacurate-simply because I don't know the precise figures- but I don't have the slightlest doubt (and neither does anyone I know) that many more people hate her than admire her.

ie you don't know

circles you mix in are probably quite unrepresentative of 'The real world.'

Where would UK be had callaghan won or, Foot!!!????:eek:

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by ladymuck
circles you mix in are probably quite unrepresentative of 'The real world.'
Are there? Perhaps, I don't know. I generally mix with the man in the street. Mostly working class but some middle class too. Ordinary people. And even the comfortable middle class people I know are happy to admit that Thatcher was a vicious, selfish malicious woman whose extreme greed and free market mentality harmed the people of this country in unprecedented levels.

Then there is the little issue of her love and support for such pleasant regimes as the Apartheid and Pinochet's Chile.

Perhaps you move along City of London circles then ladymuck? I'm sure there are a few thousand City boys who think of Thatcher as their Goddess. :rolleyes:

Or perhaps you mix with the other group of people... those who like Thatcher thought highly of the Apartheid and of brutal fascist dictators.

Which one is it?

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by ladymuck
circles you mix in are probably quite unrepresentative of 'The real world.'

Unless he mixes with some alien race, then I find this very difficult to believe.

In fact, I would be interested to hear your definition of "the real world"...

[Kermit]

Thatcher wasn't as good as people claim. Thatcher wasn't as bad as people claim. There always has to be realism in these discussions.

The trade unionists brought it on themselves by holding the country over a barrel for twenty years, and people were sick of it. This goes further back than Thatcher; Heath got in on an anti-union ticket, and was deposed when he didn't fulfil his election pledges.

The mining communities brought it on themselves with their illegal strike; the National Grid was forced to change suppliers in order to keep the power stations running, and they changed to coal from Australia and Romania that was relaible and cheap. The mining industry had also been dying a death for twenty years or more, regardless of what the NUM tried to claim- if everyone has gas central heating, there isn't much demand for coal is there? Especially when power stations tend to run on lower-quality coal from opencast collieries, such as around Selby in East Yorkshire; deepcast coal tended to be reliant on the domestic market, which evolved away from it.

The market meant that the steel and ship indutries in the UK died, as there was no-one there to buy the ships from them. The only industry I blame the Tories for killing is the train-building industry, and that was Major's doing not Thatcher's.

[Kermit]

I agree about the Minimum Wage Aladdin; the state the Conservative Party was in in 1997 means that no, they wouldn't have taken the Minimum Wage on, because they wouldn't have taken the Social Chapter on.

Basically I don't think Blair is any better than the Tories; they are all as bad as each other. But at least under the Tories they didn't have their hand in the till, with the exception of Aitken; and even when he did have his hand in the till, at least the Prime Minister wasn't directly implicated in the horrendous corruption.

[Teagan]

Originally posted by Clandestine
By disenfranchising opposition voters through the poll tax which many refused to pay and subsequently lost their right to vote.

Nice theory but it did not work that way in practice. Until Blair arrived, the anti-Tory voters had no real alternative to the socialist left wing old Labour Party and stayed away from the polling stations. New Labour offered an opportunity to move away from 'tax and spend' but still be socially aware which encouraged people to vote again.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Clandestine
By disenfranchising opposition voters through the poll tax which many refused to pay and subsequently lost their right to vote.

A slight misrepresentation of the facts.

Not one person lost their right to vote as a result of the "Poll Tax". Some people thought that if they failed to register then they would not be charged. Others thought that they would not be traced, or that the local Councils wouldn't know that they existsed.

Unfortunately the Electoral Role had no part to play in the levy of the Poll Tax. It didn't matter if your were registered or not, once you hit 18 you were liable to pay.

or for failure to pay the tax.

The remedy for failure to pay was baliffs or imprisonment. Removal from the electoral roll was not an option.

In a previous life, I administered the tax.

I am a reformed character now ;)

Added to that the massive protests that followed (Trafalgar Square 1990, 300,000 people) essentially signalled the end of the Thatcher reign for all she tried to do to ensure it would never end.

Agreed, it was the final nail in her coffin.

The reason she had previously been re-elected was in part due to Falklands, and the second time because Labour (like the Tories recently) were a complete wash-out.

What the Poll Tax, and the war in Iraq prove, is that a huge majority for any single party is not good for British politics. It means that policies which are actually unpopular with the public can be implmented without their "permission" or support.

Had Thatcher or Blair had lower majorities, I don't think that either would have happened in the way that it did.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by ladymuck
It's a popular pose to wish the worst upon her, many who do were crawling in their nappies in her heyday

And what do you base that on, eh? :rolleyes:

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Perhaps you move along City of London circles then ladymuck?

She moves in BNP and C18 circles (probably).

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
What the Poll Tax, and the war in Iraq prove, is that a huge majority for any single party is not good for British politics. It means that policies which are actually unpopular with the public can be implmented without their "permission" or support.

It's more than that; it is entirely to do with the problems of FPTP. The winner of the election could feasibly have significantly fewer votes than the second-placed party, and the last government elected on a majority was in 1950.

The electoral spread is significant too- in about 450 of the 600-odd constituencies, unless you support the dominant party (Conservative in the stockbroker belt, or in rural Devon and Cumbria; Labour in the industrial north and Scotland) then you might as well not bother voting. The election is decided on about 150 seats that are "marginal"; I'm fortunate enough to live in one, Shipley, but most aren't. If a section of the population "hijack" these seats, then one government is elected over another. Sod the rest of the country, and their needs and wants- and that works for Conservative voters under Labour just as much as Labour voters under the Conservatives.

To say Thatcher winning the election means that she has a mandate is simplistic in the extreme; it's the same with Bliar, Major, whoever.

[ladymuck]

Trouble is Lab/Con won't budge on Proportional Representation as it's against their interest to do so - the political charade continues.