The Lady's not for turning !!!

[DodgyAgent]

Thanks so much - I made a claim, then pointed to the facts and you've come close to accepting I was correct when I pointed out that Thatcher increased taxes.


Not mentioned, are you saying that's a fact (that there were more people in productive jobs)? If so I know you're going to want to back it up with the details.


A conclusion you may have reached by your extensive analysis of the facts - so let's see the evidence.



I've mentioned plenty of reasons, but you just dismissed them as emotive cliches.


Except it wasn't the freeing of capitalism from the grips of socialism - it was raising cash to pay the unemployment bills by selling us something we'd already paid for and far from a free market paradise it was the replacement of useless public rip-off monopolies with useless rip-off private ones. It's the con and misrepresentation I hate.

As for tax - I was just as much against the almost doubling of VAT then as I am against the hitting of the poorly paid bu Browns messing with 10p tax.

On tax by the way, you don't mention VAT, or the abolition of reliefs, just the top rate - paid by a tiny minority.

It is the first time that you have tried to back up an argument by using factual evidence. (you must have googled long and hard). You still have not argued as to why Thatcher was such a "hateful" figure and nor have you offered an alternative view as to how the economic problems of the UK should have been managed.

The central theme of the Thatcher debate is that her policies were entirely necesssary in order to free Uk society to become as economically strong and prosperous as it is today. You have yet to proffer an alternative view as to how the Uk would have prospered without her policies.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

It is the first time that you have tried to back up an argument by using factual evidence. (you must have googled long and hard).

No it was easy, I lived through it, and I knew what I was looking for, and I've offered more evidence for my claims than you have. It's a shame you are so disappointed that I actually came up with goods, but I can't help that. I note you have totally ignored my suggestion that you do the same with the claims and "facts" you quote.

You still have not argued as to why Thatcher was such a "hateful" figure and nor have you offered an alternative view as to how the economic problems of the UK should have been managed.

Hateful was my opinion of course. I don't have to offer a range of alternative policies in order to criticise Thatcher - I can't sing but I can tell when someone else can't. Not everything she did was wrong (I never said it was), but she took actions that were not justified or necessary in my opinion. I have said what some of them were and why I think that. Of course I can't prove what would have happened if she hadn't been repeatedly elected by a minority of those voting any more than you or anyone else can.

The central theme of the Thatcher debate is that her policies were entirely necesssary[sic] in order to free Uk society to become as economically strong and prosperous as it is today.

That's your opinion, nothing more. Mine differs, get used to it

[BrilloPad]

I can't prove what would have happened if she hadn't been repeatedly elected by a minority of those voting any more than you or anyone else can.

when was the last time a party got more than50% of the votes?

[Peoplesoft bloke]

This sort of pavlovian regurgitation of MSM soundbite does not add value to what is, bar a little bit of sniping here and there, an interesting discussion.

Let me quote what she said in full so you can read the full context of what she was saying:



Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, talking to Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987


This "no such thing as society" misquote has become fabled in the left wing press and socialist folklore as a misguided proof that Thatcher's policies were solely for the rich individual.

As much as some of Thatcher's policies had her faults which we see in hindsight, there's no doubt that she and her cabinet showed strong leadership when the economy was screwed in '79 - something that is once again so lacking with this incumbant bunch of Liebour invertebrates.

Also, like snaw says, it's funny once people grow up and have families, how the dim and distant ways of socialism don't seem so right somehow...

OK - fair comment. I have read the full context before though, and needless to say I think one's view of it depends on whether one is/was broadly in favour or against Mrs T.

I find it hard to square the reality of the experience (the shifting of tax burdens from rich to poor for example) with anything other than a view that she was mainly concerned with the tax burden of the rich rather than that of poor people in work or people with no work available. One could argue (some did) that poorer people facing regressive taxation and people having no chance of employment was a price worth paying. I didn't (and still don't) accept that.

Just for the record, I don't feel the current incumbents are any better - if anything their brand of "Thatcher Lite" is even worse.

[snaw]

It is the first time that you have tried to back up an argument by using factual evidence. (you must have googled long and hard). You still have not argued as to why Thatcher was such a "hateful" figure and nor have you offered an alternative view as to how the economic problems of the UK should have been managed.

The central theme of the Thatcher debate is that her policies were entirely necesssary in order to free Uk society to become as economically strong and prosperous as it is today. You have yet to proffer an alternative view as to how the Uk would have prospered without her policies.

Many won't argue against that she was a necessary medicine DA, point is that maybe the medicine was a bit on the extreme side (That's still my take). We've been through this one a tonne of times, you'll start coming out with your usual bollocks of putting words in peoples mouths, rake on the old middle class guilt thing (WTF is that anyway?), and completely fail to listen to anyone else's point.

Some of her policies were necessary, some were entirely unnecessary. There's more to politics than pure economics, and it's possible to debate some of her economic policies and long term effects as well.

Repeating myself, no ones gonna change their mind at this late juncture so it's pure tub thumping retrospective commentary.

How's the job market?

[vetran]

The biggest Anti Tory lies

The Tories foolishly entered the ERM

On the other hand, Mr Brown supported Britain's disastrous entry into the Exchange-Rate Mechanism in 1990

http://www.economist.com/research/ar...ory_id=9991363


Maggie caused massive unemployment needlessly.

From the lefies at the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3067563.stm


She sold off the silver.

I remember working with BT both prior & post privatisation.

Before they were not cost concious and their employees seemed to work very little, after they made massive profits through entirely sensible cost cutting (and some stupid stuff as well). If she hadn't done it then it would have been like BL run down and owned by overseas interests.

Scargill & Red Robbo cost far more jobs than Maggie did. If they had said 'we have a problem lets fix it' I think the outcome would have been far different.

I worked with a number of people that had 'got on their bike' when put out of work, commuting from Yorkshire / working in Saudi etc.

Whole towns were put out of work, partially due to years of strikes, they didn't have to stay that way languishing on benefits.

Yes I did feel the pain, but I got on and did any work that paid. Just as I did in 2003 when New Lie flooded the market with cheap labour.

Obviously Gordo having a Garage sale of Gold, Buildings, Pensions and our future PFI bills is far more competent.

Yes she got a little confused at the end, but so did Blair, as will Brown once the knives go in. Opposition don't win elections governments lose them, much the same as PMs.

[threaded]

Only correcting the mistakes of 1974-1979.

How long will it take to correct 1997-20xx ?

It will and it won't. It will be corrected, but not by the British, but by the Chinese taking control of the UK economy.

HTH

threaded in "crystal balls" mode.

[BrilloPad]

It will and it won't. It will be corrected, but not by the British, but by the Chinese taking control of the UK economy.

HTH

threaded in "crystal balls" mode.

tis true. they are slowly taking control.

[BrilloPad]

The Tories foolishly entered the ERM

Maggie was against.

Maggie caused massive unemployment needlessly.

Scargill & Red Robbo cost far more jobs than Maggie did. If they had said 'we have a problem lets fix it' I think the outcome would have been far different.

[sasguru]

Interesting I missed all this ...No one seems to mention what her long term legacy is - the first post-industrial society in the world. Don't know if that's good or bad. But here are some facts:

- if you take London (and the City) out of the equation, the UK economy becomes very small indeed, smaller than Italy's. That is not the case in France, Germany or indeed Italy.
- Thatcher championed the move to service industries - but these are increasingly being outsourced. The Germans have gone the other way and have re-industrialised and are now the largest exporter in the world (of high value-added products)

DA, you mentioned that the UK would be a basket case without Thatcher. My assertion is it IS a basket case. We have covered up that fact by borrowing and an artificial housing boom.
But now the chickens are coming home to roost - we'll see just how good or bad the British economy is.