Maggie

[thfcsteff]

Scara...will read through the replies later tonight mate...hopefully after a few smiles have been put on my face!!! ;-)
COYS!

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

Some of you guys are crazy! She never destroyed industry in the UK, it was already dead and buried and in a labour intensive industry that will always be the case in a richer country. Why do you think Apple get their stuff built in China rather than the US?

You guys need to wise up and realise that everything in life is just trends, and trends can lasts for a day or a thousand years but sooner or later they're over man. Britain's industry was through the moment inflation was rampant and its workers got greedy. They priced themselves out of the market, but ultimately with the coal miners it was a dead industry and even though she didn't have green intentions it's a good thing for earth that the coal mining industry was nerfed. Just a shame it hasn't happened all over the world!

 

[Jurgen the German]

To him, taxation is 'theft.'

But I bet he's fine with us having to pay for her £10m funeral.

Are Thatcher's family putting ANYTHING towards it just out of curiosity?

 

[scaramanga]

But I bet he's fine with us having to pay for her £10m funeral.

Are Thatcher's family putting ANYTHING towards it just out of curiosity?

Actually I'm not. I believe the state should only pay for the things it absolutely has to - people's funerals (no matter how important they've been to the country) aren't on that list.

 

[Jurgen the German]

Actually I'm not. I believe the state should only pay for the things it absolutely has to - people's funerals (no matter how important they've been to the country) aren't on that list.

Fair enough, at least you're consistent.

I'm fine with my taxpayer money going to things like a royal wedding because they bring in millions and millions through tourism, but I don't like the idea of my money being put towards funerals for people that aren't even liked by half the country. It annoyed me when we had to pay for the Pope to visit too, the Catholic church can't be short of a few bob.

 

[scaramanga]

Fair enough, at least you're consistent.

I'm fine with my taxpayer money going to things like a royal wedding because they bring in millions and millions through tourism, but I don't like the idea of my money being put towards funerals for people that aren't even liked by half the country. It annoyed me when we had to pay for the Pope to visit too, the Catholic church can't be short of a few bob.

Don't even get me started on their theft.

 

[Richie]

Fair enough, at least you're consistent.

I'm fine with my taxpayer money going to things like a royal wedding because they bring in millions and millions through tourism, but I don't like the idea of my money being put towards funerals for people that aren't even liked by half the country. It annoyed me when we had to pay for the Pope to visit too, the Catholic church can't be short of a few bob.

To be fair, the Thatcher Foundation is paying for half the cost, and a large amount of the cost will be things like policing. Things like football cost the taxpayer millions in policing too, as clubs aren't liable for policing outside the ground.

Costs for policing big events, especially those like Thatchers funeral which have a high likelihood of turning violent, will always cost a lot of money but thats the price of policing.

 

[Richie]

Really?!!!

Do you not believe that everyone benefits from having an educated/healthy society? If there was no "free" state education the private sector would not be able to find a suitable workforce for it to operate, and if they could, the amount of "sick days" would make it impossible to compete economically. Or wold you not pay people if they are too sick to come in to work?

Seriously naive and ridiculous comment that Scara.

If someone chooses private healthcare or schooling, they should be entitled to a rebate from the government.

This is exactly how schools should be run. If you send your kid to private school, you should be entitled to a voucher which is equal to the amount it would have cost to educate your child at a state school. Parents then pay the remaining fee. Considering how much is spent on education per child in this country, that would give many millions of children the opportunity of a top class private school education at a fraction of the cost.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

If someone chooses private healthcare or schooling, they should be entitled to a rebate from the government.

This is exactly how schools should be run. If you send your kid to private school, you should be entitled to a voucher which is equal to the amount it would have cost to educate your child at a state school. Parents then pay the remaining fee. Considering how much is spent on education per child in this country, that would give many millions of children the opportunity of a top class private school education at a fraction of the cost.

i wish this were the case im due fudging thousands

 

[Bonsaiboy]

Some of you guys are crazy! She never destroyed industry in the UK, it was already dead and buried and in a labour intensive industry that will always be the case in a richer country. Why do you think Apple get their stuff built in China rather than the US?

You guys need to wise up and realise that everything in life is just trends, and trends can lasts for a day or a thousand years but sooner or later they're over man. Britain's industry was through the moment inflation was rampant and its workers got greedy. They priced themselves out of the market, but ultimately with the coal miners it was a dead industry and even though she didn't have green intentions it's a good thing for earth that the coal mining industry was nerfed. Just a shame it hasn't happened all over the world!

This. Absolutely.

History will be very kind to her.

It's just too awful to imagine what we'd have been now had Labour won the '79 election. We'd have capitulated to Argentinians as well as the unions.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

interesting read in the guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/11/tony-blair-labour-protest-party blair knew his stuff, maybe it wont be the cake walk for millband i thought it would be.

 

[scaramanga]

If someone chooses private healthcare or schooling, they should be entitled to a rebate from the government.

This is exactly how schools should be run. If you send your kid to private school, you should be entitled to a voucher which is equal to the amount it would have cost to educate your child at a state school. Parents then pay the remaining fee. Considering how much is spent on education per child in this country, that would give many millions of children the opportunity of a top class private school education at a fraction of the cost.

£3k per child per year - that's a quarter of the school fees at a good school. Might not be much, but giving it back is the only fair thing for the government to do.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

£3k per child per year - that's a quarter of the school fees at a good school. Might not be much, but giving it back is the only fair thing for the government to do.

I would settle for them to allow Grammar schools again or at least allow people to donate to them.

 

[Richie]

£3k per child per year - that's a quarter of the school fees at a good school. Might not be much, but giving it back is the only fair thing for the government to do.

£3k per child?

There are 9 million children aged between 5-18 in the country. The government spend on education (by function rather than by department) is £99bn. If we only spend £3000 per child, where is the other £72bn going?

When I searched for figures published by the newspapers they put it around £5500 per child, but even if that's the case then it only accounts for £50bn of the £99bn spent.

Personally I think the figure is higher, perhaps closer to £7500. If it truly is as low as the £3000 or £5500 suggested, we need to start cutting billions from the education budget.

Regardless, the average cost of private school is around £11,000 per year if the £5500 figure is correct, that would halve the cost of the average private school tuition making it much more attainable for the average family.

 

[thfcsteff]

Mate!

Got to this finally...I've replied in boldface...interesting debate for sure...

The bit I was responding to there was the inference that there was an intentional destruction of entire communities because of some irrational dislike of them or prejudice towards the South. That's clearly a myth - nobody would put in the years of dedication required to rise to that level just to enforce some kind of petty grudge. Whilst I think that many Labour PMs were qunts and the majority completely incompetent/misguided/lacking in a basic understanding of economics, the suggestion that they would make major policy decisions out of pure spite is a little ridiculous.


I believe at the beginning of her reign you might well be right. However, given that I consider her a sociopath, I believe that the more entrenched opposition to her (in context) radical proposals became, the colder and more spiteful her counter-reactions (and actions) became. A GREAT leader is able to effect change without harm. Even a relatively clever leader is able to keep most people onside regardless. She displayed little-to-no interest, instead following the patterns displayed by many a sociopathic CEO.



You're right, this probably is an incredibly long conversation. All I'll say is that considering 'me' over 'us' was, IMHO already there - the union members knew that for every extra penny they earned, that was a penny not spent on education or hospitals, etc. That didn't stop them from wanting more, more, more though.


I would certainly concede that unions needed some sort of reform, and industry too. But IMO it should've been an open, staggered and progressive INCLUSIVE series of changes, not a sudden, rapid-fire and explosive EXCLUSIVE (and, dare I say it, almost Darwinian) raid.



The housing crisis is something that has really come about since her time. Governments on both sides have continued this ridiculous belief that the places people most want to live are the ones that need most protection from building. Environmental regulations have made the situation worse and a lack of investment (based on a lack of credit, caused by Brown's ignorance of moral hazard) has compounded it. Could more have been done at the time to increase the level of housing? I'm sure it could. Was it overall a good policy to allow people to own their own homes? Absolutely IMHO.

Again, there was no initial middle ground. Essentially, what 'right to buy' did was help create ghettos. The main areas with concentrated amounts of public housing left were in communities where (at the same time) industry was being absolutely slaughtered at the hyper-speed mentioned above. The result? Poor, depressed and disenfranchised areas of the country. She didn't observe even the most cursory of speed limits, she went from 0-90 in a residential area!




Another issue people tend to forget when it comes to a lack of social housing is the ridiculous council house for life policy. Thanks to our delightful welfare state and a rare lack of foresight from Thatcher herself, once a family is given a council house they keep it for life. If you want more social housing available, simply take it away from those who don't need it - problem solved overnight.


And what's the determination for that?



People don't always want more for less. Every individual has a level of quality (or lack) that they will accept for a certain value. Some will value quality over price and vice versa. Full privatisation allows for these choices to be made, unfortunately many things in this country are not fully privatised.


People with a degree of education and standards, yes. People who are manipulated into believing they 'deserve' things and 'should have' that and 'can have it with a low interest rate' on their credit end up on the hamster wheel of materialistic slavery, satiated by their 'things' and in debt to the eyeballs because 'it's OK you can afford it!' And rare is the person who will pay more for higher quality or to support their local producer/industry. In fairness, half the population can only afford to buy cheap brick made afar in their Asdas or Walmarts (or Targets in the US). Another long conversation here mate...



Take telecoms. Sky broadband is dirt cheap if you have a subscription - trouble is, it's also a terrible broadband service. For some people (like my parents) the cost is more important than the quality. For me, I'd rather pay more for a better service. The fact that the choice is there is the important thing though - everybody should have the right to make that decision themselves, not the government on their behalf. I also value the quality of private healthcare and schooling over the much cheaper (essentially free as I can't take back what the govt has stolen from me) NHS and state school systems.

When it comes to eduction, I believe every single child deserves a strong, good and proper education experience. Public education is so compromised at this point that it is absolutely taking it's toll and creating tiers and class systems again, slaves and masters if you will. As for the 'stolen' comment, it is the price you pay for being part of a (hopefully somewhat) civilized society. Again, it is to the benefit of EVERYONE that societies are well-educated and healthy.



Some things though, can't really be privatised properly. Like I said in the Korea thread, defence spending has to be done at a government level - it's one of the few roles that a government really needs to have.

Right. So as they can manipulate the contracts to go to countries who will serve their specific economic interests.


As opposed to the old system where the market was made up of low-wage mining or steel smelting - I don't see the difference.

Looking at this one out of context so will pass.

The university issue is of Blair's making - part of his obsession with tweaking stats to make himself look good. He decided that it would look great if 50% of kids went to uni in his time as PM so he made it happen, with no regard for the quality of the degree or the fact that it would make a degree essentially worthless in the eyes of employers.


Yes, agreed... Another sociopathic liar cut from similar cloth. She often claimed New Labour was her greatest legacy and she's not far wrong.


20 years ago, you could be pretty certain that a graduate was part of the intellectual elite - as an employer it would be pretty safe to go for any graduate with the right skillset. Now a degree means nothing to an employer - in order to find the elite you need someone with a degree from the right uni. This massively disadvantages poorer intelligent kids and is one of the worst things Blair did while in power.

I agree 100% An absolute joke.


I don't understand this obsession people have with our country making stuff. Stuff has always been made in the cheapest place possible - before globalisation it was the North, since then it's China/Korea, etc. The only way to make stuff that will sell is to completely automate it or for our labour to be cheaper than China - neither of which does much for our job market.

I think it's safe to say it'd be better to have products manufactured at home, or as close to home, as possible where choice dictates IF (that is) you want to keep your country tangibly productive. Sadly I agree with the last part now...we are too far down the road which she created in the dust of her violent change.



I think attempting to keep Northern Ireland British was a big mistake of hers. It's nothing but a drain on the economy and a waste of time that could be spent doing far more important stuff.

Again, I think if she wasn't a sociopath, she could've achieved a lot there.

However, once the decision was made to keep the place British, I think she dealt with it in the right way. I agree with her that criminals should be treated like criminals, don't you?

Quite aside from the fact those rules did not apply to her own son, a criminal of the highest order, if someone becomes an elected official by way of a state recognized political system, they are entitled to be heard in a higher political forums. By the way, Pinochet was a massive criminal and notorious murderer, yet was treated as a loyal friend.

Edit: I've just had to look this up because I knew there was something ridiculous about it but can never remember what. Amongst the murderous scumbag's requests on his hunger strike were "The right not to wear a prison uniform" and "The right not to do prison work". He clearly didn't understand the concept of prison properly, maybe he'd have been better off in some kind of institution for the faint of mind.

She would never have let him be in such an institution. She had plans for him. And they revolved around her building her 'Iron lady' legacy with massive human costs. The blunt truth is she did more to empower and engorge the IRA than anyone had ever done. Not dissimilar to how the west's absolutely pathetic invasion of Iraq resulted in Al Qaeda being able to suddenly grow and recruit from hundreds of thousands more 'suddenly stirred' people. As a politician her first serve should be diplomatic. But she refused to. Instead she used Northern Ireland, like the Falklands, for political currency. In the process many many innocent people were harmed. I find that totally,and utterly, unforgivable mate.

Interesting discussion, I appreciate the reply.

p.s. all this is coming from someone who grew up in a council house, was working (and going to college) at the age of 16 and who has never received any sort of government handout.

 

[spitshine]

Fair enough, at least you're consistent.

I'm fine with my taxpayer money going to things like a royal wedding because they bring in millions and millions through tourism, but I don't like the idea of my money being put towards funerals for people that aren't even liked by half the country. It annoyed me when we had to pay for the Pope to visit too, the Catholic church can't be short of a few bob.

Ooh lets not talk about the Catholic Church and the most corrupt organisation in the world bar none.

 

[Libero]

But I bet he's fine with us having to pay for her £10m funeral.

Are Thatcher's family putting ANYTHING towards it just out of curiosity?

Why shouldn't we as a state pay something towards her funeral? The reported figure isn't even confirmed and no doubt won't be as high anyway and the Thatcher family are contributing towards pretty much the whole service. The bill will more or less be for security, partly because people cannot be trusted to behave themselves and be respectful.

£10m is being complained about when she managed to reclaim £169bn in rebate capital from the EU during her premiership that this country otherwise would never have seen.

I have even heard people peddling stories like the state were funding her stay at The Ritz coupled with people who were never directly affected by her, weren't born or barely were during her administration making wild accusations along those lines.

It really is little wonder that this country is the way it is when people are so happy to be complete sheep and follow nothing other than what their parents have told them and accept it as gospel rather than actually living it or learning about the many sides to the 11 year story that will always have good and bad points for either side of the argument.

 

[Libero]

Some of you guys are crazy! She never destroyed industry in the UK, it was already dead and buried and in a labour intensive industry that will always be the case in a richer country. Why do you think Apple get their stuff built in China rather than the US?

You guys need to wise up and realise that everything in life is just trends, and trends can lasts for a day or a thousand years but sooner or later they're over man. Britain's industry was through the moment inflation was rampant and its workers got greedy. They priced themselves out of the market, but ultimately with the coal miners it was a dead industry and even though she didn't have green intentions it's a good thing for earth that the coal mining industry was nerfed. Just a shame it hasn't happened all over the world!

I think this in some respects is a valid point. For people to say she destroyed industries in this country is just grandstanding to my mind. Many industries were failing and she merely hastened their demise. I take the point with the Miners that if it were done differently then extra mass unemployment wouldn't have occured in such short period but Scargill has to take his share of the blame for that. The coal industry had it survived, would have imo, been subject to plenty of scrutiny around the greenhouse effect and people would have been campaigning for much cleaner ways of energy. It would have been an unviable way of keeping Britain powered within 5-10 years of the strike anyway.

Other factors with regards our productivity and industries such as car manufacturing and the like, they would have suffered if she hadn't done what she did through her time in power anyway due to the rise of cheaper labour and increased use of technology in the far east with labour costs probably being the main factor.

 

[Baleforce]

Ooh lets not talk about the Catholic Church and the most corrupt organisation in the world bar none.

and also the most evil

 

[Richie]

I was born in 87 so have little first hand knowledge of Thatcher but to everyone saying she could have been more diplomatic and consensus driven with the unions, was that not what Heath, Callaghan and Wilson tried and spectacularly failed at in the preceeding years?