| Thatcher dead 12:56 - Apr 8 with 82656 views | six_foot_two |
Skynews are are saying Magaret Thatcher has died of a stroke |  | | |  |
| Thatcher dead on 13:22 - Apr 12 with 1914 views | R_from_afar |
| Thatcher dead on 14:33 - Apr 11 by TheBlob |
"Maggie was also one of the first world leaders to warn about climate change."
Proof positive that it was a potential economic scam.
 |
Who knows whether she really believed it was an issue or if she just did it to boost her profile as a world leader.
On the topic of global warming and climate change, Big Oil is now accepting that the problems are man-made:
Conoco-Phillips CEO:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that global warming is unequivocal."... "Last year we became the only U.S. integrated energy company to call for a mandatory national framework to address greenhouse gas emissions."
http://www.conocophillips.com/EN/newsroom/other_resources/pages/cdp_speech_text.
BP:"Accepts findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/china/bpchina_english/STAGING/local_ass
SHELL:“CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change."
http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_society/environment/climate_change
EXXON:“The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) provides an update of scientific understanding regarding GHG emissions, global warming and the risks of climate change, and the way changes could unfold in the future. Emissions scenarios and results from climate models (see Figure 1) estimate that, without policy intervention, temperatures could increase 1 to 5 º C by 2100.”
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/safety_climate_mgmt_report.aspx
CHEVRON:“we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change.The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases(GHGs)–mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane–in the Earth's atmosphere."
http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/
RFA |  |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| Thatcher dead on 13:25 - Apr 12 with 1906 views | Hunterhoop |
| Thatcher dead on 12:46 - Apr 12 by Clive_Anderson |
"If miners were able to move to other mines or move easily into another sector, what is there to do for them??? "
You're making two separate points here, only one of which I was arguing against.
The first is that miners could before Thatcher could easily move to another mine. But if job losses were lost over the industry as a whole then I don't see how that is possible.
Your second point (which I wasn't even addressing before so I don't know why you're getting in such a strop) is that there were other areas of employment so closing the mines wasn't important. This is a fair point as there was lots of employment in the decades after the war since the country needed to be rebuilt and also modernised.
So I guess your argument boils down to that mine closures in loss making mines was ok in times when unemployment was low, but not if it was high. I'd argue that the cost of keeping subsidised heavy industry open for longer would have been detrimental to the long term recovery of the economy. |
Again, you're failing to read properly.
It's fine to close exhausted mines, as explained by Nadera, when there's other big mines to go to work for AND other job opportunities in other sectors. I don't see a problem there. There was no coal to mine anymore in them and there were other jobs for the workers to go to. It's common sense. That's why there wasn't an outcry.
Shutting most of the remaining mines, when there weren't other mines to go to and there weren't other jobs available, but when these mines still had plenty of coal to mine, is very different!!
Surely anyone with half a brain can see that.
You originally were making the point it was unfair/odd that miners didn't have a gripe with Wilson, but did with Thatcher. The above explains that.
And the wider issue of state support for struggling sectors, whether they be transport, coal, financial, etc, is a bigger, wider ideological point.
I haven't got a problem with you believing it's wrong. Providing you accept that if it's wrong for one sector, it's wrong for all. Because that's logic. Tbh i think you did say earlier you don't support it at all for anything. Fine, if that's true.
It's a very very economically right wing stance to take though.
And economically, I think it hampers economic growth not enhances it, as you make out.
Consumer spending is crucial to economic growth. What Thatcher did with the mines, whilst easing the pressure on the Treasury purse strings to support the industry, meant higher unemployment than would have been the case. This in turn means reduced consumer spending and greater pressure on the welfare state.
It is simply not possible to say categorically, as you do, that her approach was for the good of the economy. There is widespread disagreement from economists on this approach. In fact, Osborn's austerity measures (which in principle are the same - reduce state expenditure - at the risk of unemployment) are being criticised the world over for being responsible for limiting consumer expenditure growing, in turn allowing business to grow, re-invest, grow more, etc.
But hey, that's a bigger political discussion.
|  | | |
| Thatcher dead on 13:25 - Apr 12 with 1904 views | R_from_afar |
| Thatcher dead on 14:50 - Apr 11 by simmo |
There better be this many pages after Clint Hill scores. |
There you go again, talking about football on a political forum. 
Oh....
RFA
PS: It would be fitting if he got his goal against Liverpool, keeping us up in the process. Fitting, but not very likely. | |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| Thatcher dead on 13:29 - Apr 12 with 1897 views | R_from_afar |
| Thatcher dead on 18:55 - Apr 11 by runningman75 |
People keep saying how great Thatcher made the country when her own children do not live here! |
Mark is considerably more intelligent than his mother. Rather than wasting time climbing up the political ladder like she did, he cut to the chase and masterminded a coup.
RFA | |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| Thatcher dead on 13:35 - Apr 12 with 1870 views | SpiritofGregory |
| Thatcher dead on 11:46 - Apr 12 by Juzzie |
Germany don't have the same high housing prices we have because there's no demand to buy. Renting is normal, there's no "a Germans castle is his home" mentality out there. I think I explained this early on this thread too.
The rapid rise in housing prices in the UK were primarliy demand-driven. Other factors have now come into it but this thread is about then, not now. Too many people keep going on about Brown & Blair (who are both schisters for the record, but not relevant to a Maggie Thatcher thread talking about the 80's)
There's less demand in Germany = realistic prices. They think we're bonkers paying the prices that we do.
|
In Germany they had a more responsible policy in relation to home ownership eg they didn't allow financial institutions to lend 5/6 times your salary which is what happen during Labour in the 90s and sent the housing market spiraling out of control.
Germany is also a bigger country, ours is a more highly densely populated country which not only has an impact on housing, it impacts the price of land. In relation to over inflated property prices, we don't have over inflated property prices in the UK, we have over inflated ownership and rental rates in the South East of England in particular London. There isn't a lack of social housing and their aren't long waiting lists up north.
In Germany the population don't have that overwhelming desire to live in a certain part of the country. The money offered from others to rebuild their country at the end of the war was used sensibly, not wasted and together with sound economic policy and the majority pulling in the same direction, resulted in strong industry and the delivery of quality goods. Meanwhile at British Leyland shop stewards were calling strikes if the vending machine was empty.
Berlin, Hamburg, Munich etc are all desirable cities to live in and are situated in different parts of the country therefore wealth and population is distributed dispelling high prices, brought about by high demand and lack of supply of housing, in a particular area. This also has a positive knock on effect on the rental market in that it keeps rents low and allows people to remain in their rented accommodation for a longer period of time so the need to own, isn't high up on a person's agenda. |  | | |
| Thatcher dead on 13:36 - Apr 12 with 1885 views | BlackCrowe |
30 pages.
All very well everyone ranting about her but should not be forgotten that it was the public that democratically voted her into power on three consecutive occasions. |  |
| |
| Thatcher dead on 13:40 - Apr 12 with 1873 views | R_from_afar |
| Thatcher dead on 08:51 - Apr 12 by TheBlob |
Cheers for that.But then you know it's all a scam if she's endorsing it eh?The wily old cow recognised there was a fortune to be made from Global Warming.
|
Which are more likely to be involved in a scam: The people agreeing with the scientific consensus, i.e that GW is man-made, or those that aren't?
Are Michael Mann and James Hansen billionaire businessmen? Nope, they are scientists.
Man-made global warming comes down to a simple fact of chemistry, known since the 18th century: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
We are pumping out billions of tons of it (up 26% last year). Therefore....
And before anyone mentions solar cycles, we are coming out of a solar minimum.
RFA | |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| Thatcher dead on 13:42 - Apr 12 with 1873 views | QPR_John |
| Thatcher dead on 09:09 - Apr 12 by BrianMcCarthy |
John and Pom,
I'll try. Isn't a basic tenet of taxation that it be equitable, and that it therefore be structured based on the relative ability to pay?
VAT and the Poll Tax were charged with being inherently inequitable as they are/were aimed at disposable income, in their cases weekly shopping and rent/mortgages. As those with lower incomes spend a greater amount of their disposable incomes than those with higher incomes, this hits them not just equally but harder.
On the other end of the scale is inheritance tax, which is clearly a tax on wealth and nothing else.
In between is what's held by most economists I've read as the most equitable tax of all - income tax.
|
Been out and have not had time to reply. This is an interesting argument and I see where you are coming from as I had not looked at it that way but what I find striking is that you use the same argument against VAT as you do the Poll Tax and you are right to do so. You could argue that VAT, using your criteria, is a more Iniquitous tax than the Poll tax, I think you would pay more through the former than the latter. There were no riots over the introduction of VAT and we quite happily lived with its predecessor purchase tax. Makes we wonder if the Poll tax riots were more political than altruistic [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Thatcher dead on 13:45 - Apr 12 with 1865 views | FDC |
| Thatcher dead on 11:24 - Apr 12 by TacticalR |
Most people have made thoughtful contributions to the thread (on both sides), and most have tried to offer some kind of analysis. It's shame a few such as Clive_Anderson have sought to reduce the level of the discussion with the most crude whitewashing of the past, the most blithe detachment from contemporary reality, the most servile defence of power, and all delivered in the tone of the most smug sermon of a country parson. |
Well said, he's the most exasperating poster I've ever come across on any message board any where. |  | | |
| Thatcher dead on 13:45 - Apr 12 with 1865 views | Clive_Anderson |
| Thatcher dead on 13:25 - Apr 12 by Hunterhoop |
Again, you're failing to read properly.
It's fine to close exhausted mines, as explained by Nadera, when there's other big mines to go to work for AND other job opportunities in other sectors. I don't see a problem there. There was no coal to mine anymore in them and there were other jobs for the workers to go to. It's common sense. That's why there wasn't an outcry.
Shutting most of the remaining mines, when there weren't other mines to go to and there weren't other jobs available, but when these mines still had plenty of coal to mine, is very different!!
Surely anyone with half a brain can see that.
You originally were making the point it was unfair/odd that miners didn't have a gripe with Wilson, but did with Thatcher. The above explains that.
And the wider issue of state support for struggling sectors, whether they be transport, coal, financial, etc, is a bigger, wider ideological point.
I haven't got a problem with you believing it's wrong. Providing you accept that if it's wrong for one sector, it's wrong for all. Because that's logic. Tbh i think you did say earlier you don't support it at all for anything. Fine, if that's true.
It's a very very economically right wing stance to take though.
And economically, I think it hampers economic growth not enhances it, as you make out.
Consumer spending is crucial to economic growth. What Thatcher did with the mines, whilst easing the pressure on the Treasury purse strings to support the industry, meant higher unemployment than would have been the case. This in turn means reduced consumer spending and greater pressure on the welfare state.
It is simply not possible to say categorically, as you do, that her approach was for the good of the economy. There is widespread disagreement from economists on this approach. In fact, Osborn's austerity measures (which in principle are the same - reduce state expenditure - at the risk of unemployment) are being criticised the world over for being responsible for limiting consumer expenditure growing, in turn allowing business to grow, re-invest, grow more, etc.
But hey, that's a bigger political discussion.
|
"Shutting most of the remaining mines, when there weren't other mines to go to and there weren't other jobs available, but when these mines still had plenty of coal to mine, is very different!! "
Yes I do agree with that statement. I just found it hard to believe that there were loads of mines in the 70s that were naturally closing down, but suddenly in the 80s there weren't any. I'd be interested in any figures you have for this. If you look at the numbers of mines that were closing it looked as though the trend was continuing under Thatcher as it had done before without any significant policy change:
1974 .. 250
1975 .. 241
1976 .. 239
1977 .. 231
1978 .. 223
1979 .. 219
1980 .. 213
1981 .. 200
1982 .. 191
1983 .. 170
1984 .. 169
1985 .. 133
1986 .. 110
1987 .. 94
1988 .. 86
1989 .. 73
So if 223 mines in 1978 closed naturally at the end of their usefulness then it seems reasonable to expect around 219 in the next year would close too.
"And the wider issue of state support for struggling sectors, whether they be transport, coal, financial, etc, is a bigger, wider ideological point. "
With the mining and other heavy industries they had tried state support over several decades and were still making heavy losses. I think it was obvious at that point that they weren't going to return to profit, so I guess the question then becomes how long should the support continue for? I'm not pretending to know the answer, but someone at some point it seems like you have to pull the plug.
Also there's the question of why there was more unemployment at the end of the 70s than at the start. After a decade of government subsidies to heavy industry unemployment was higher than at the start, so perhaps more subsidies weren't the answer (or even affordable). | | | |
| Thatcher dead on 13:47 - Apr 12 with 1859 views | R_from_afar |
| Thatcher dead on 13:25 - Apr 12 by Hunterhoop |
Again, you're failing to read properly.
It's fine to close exhausted mines, as explained by Nadera, when there's other big mines to go to work for AND other job opportunities in other sectors. I don't see a problem there. There was no coal to mine anymore in them and there were other jobs for the workers to go to. It's common sense. That's why there wasn't an outcry.
Shutting most of the remaining mines, when there weren't other mines to go to and there weren't other jobs available, but when these mines still had plenty of coal to mine, is very different!!
Surely anyone with half a brain can see that.
You originally were making the point it was unfair/odd that miners didn't have a gripe with Wilson, but did with Thatcher. The above explains that.
And the wider issue of state support for struggling sectors, whether they be transport, coal, financial, etc, is a bigger, wider ideological point.
I haven't got a problem with you believing it's wrong. Providing you accept that if it's wrong for one sector, it's wrong for all. Because that's logic. Tbh i think you did say earlier you don't support it at all for anything. Fine, if that's true.
It's a very very economically right wing stance to take though.
And economically, I think it hampers economic growth not enhances it, as you make out.
Consumer spending is crucial to economic growth. What Thatcher did with the mines, whilst easing the pressure on the Treasury purse strings to support the industry, meant higher unemployment than would have been the case. This in turn means reduced consumer spending and greater pressure on the welfare state.
It is simply not possible to say categorically, as you do, that her approach was for the good of the economy. There is widespread disagreement from economists on this approach. In fact, Osborn's austerity measures (which in principle are the same - reduce state expenditure - at the risk of unemployment) are being criticised the world over for being responsible for limiting consumer expenditure growing, in turn allowing business to grow, re-invest, grow more, etc.
But hey, that's a bigger political discussion.
|
Compare and contrast Thatcher's mine closure "programme" with that of Germany, where the mines were phased out in a sympathetic (to the workers) way, over years.
RFA | |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| Thatcher dead on 13:47 - Apr 12 with 1858 views | NW5Hoop |
| Thatcher dead on 13:40 - Apr 12 by R_from_afar |
Which are more likely to be involved in a scam: The people agreeing with the scientific consensus, i.e that GW is man-made, or those that aren't?
Are Michael Mann and James Hansen billionaire businessmen? Nope, they are scientists.
Man-made global warming comes down to a simple fact of chemistry, known since the 18th century: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
We are pumping out billions of tons of it (up 26% last year). Therefore....
And before anyone mentions solar cycles, we are coming out of a solar minimum.
RFA |
I'm always amazed that anyone argues that climate change has become a widely endorsed theory because of its financial clout.
Yep, those academics have got all the cash. Not like those poverty stricken fossil fuel companies. | | | |
| Thatcher dead on 13:50 - Apr 12 with 1855 views | Clive_Anderson |
| Thatcher dead on 13:45 - Apr 12 by FDC |
Well said, he's the most exasperating poster I've ever come across on any message board any where. |
Well it sounds like the personal attacks are growing ever more frequent, so I'm going to bow out of this one.
As someone somewhere once said:
“I always cheer up immensely if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.” | | | |
| Thatcher dead on 14:00 - Apr 12 with 1843 views | TacticalR |
| Thatcher dead on 13:06 - Apr 12 by Clive_Anderson |
So this is what got you so uptight. I said upthread that she felt a national debt to Pinochet because of his help during the Falklands conflict. I even provided a link to that affect:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3635244/Thatcher-always-honoure
"Mrs Thatcher had no direct personal dealings with Pinochet while she was in Downing Street, despite the cooperation detailed below"
Whether helping him was the right decision or not, it was driven by the feeling that Britain owed him something because of previous events and wasn't just helping him because they were mates.
If you've got other evidence that contradicts this then fair enough I'll admit I was wrong. That's what a discussion is for isn't it? Rather than just reading something you don't like, getting angry and then start to throw personal insults about. |
So it doesn't matter if you come out with the most blatant falsehoods in defence of your heroine (in this case that she 'wasn't mates' with a murderous dictator), because that gives others the opportunity to go away and gather evidence which you can then pass further judgement upon?
Yes she was mates with Pinochet. His was the original monetarist experiment, ten years before Thatcher tried it in Britain.
Of course, as a dictator this didn't fit with the official line of Thatcher bringing democracy to the world. The supplying of cocaine to Europe for two decades was an embarrassment too (at least for those capable of embarrassment):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/dec/10/chile.pinochet |  |
| |
| Thatcher dead on 14:03 - Apr 12 with 1836 views | TheBlob |
| Thatcher dead on 13:40 - Apr 12 by R_from_afar |
Which are more likely to be involved in a scam: The people agreeing with the scientific consensus, i.e that GW is man-made, or those that aren't?
Are Michael Mann and James Hansen billionaire businessmen? Nope, they are scientists.
Man-made global warming comes down to a simple fact of chemistry, known since the 18th century: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
We are pumping out billions of tons of it (up 26% last year). Therefore....
And before anyone mentions solar cycles, we are coming out of a solar minimum.
RFA |
You lot have changed your tunes.Not long ago there were arguments that the sun - and Solar Minima - didn't affect the climate.
Whatever,Thatch knew the investement potential of bullshit.Playing both sides against the middle produces a lot of wonga - if not hot air.
Look up Waste Heat also - energy from whatever source creates heat. |  |
| |
| Thatcher dead on 14:10 - Apr 12 with 1826 views | Clive_Anderson |
| Thatcher dead on 14:00 - Apr 12 by TacticalR |
So it doesn't matter if you come out with the most blatant falsehoods in defence of your heroine (in this case that she 'wasn't mates' with a murderous dictator), because that gives others the opportunity to go away and gather evidence which you can then pass further judgement upon?
Yes she was mates with Pinochet. His was the original monetarist experiment, ten years before Thatcher tried it in Britain.
Of course, as a dictator this didn't fit with the official line of Thatcher bringing democracy to the world. The supplying of cocaine to Europe for two decades was an embarrassment too (at least for those capable of embarrassment):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/dec/10/chile.pinochet |
"Yes she was mates with Pinochet. His was the original monetarist experiment, ten years before Thatcher tried it in Britain."
So they were both monetarists so they were mates. Er...ok.
I think you're getting a bit hysterical to be honest, which is normally a bit unlike you. I think the mere mention of Thatcher to some people gets them frothing at the mouth and it is impossible to discuss it rationally.
Anyway I really better go and do some work now so I'll stop exasperating everyone with my different opinions so you can now relax. | | | |
| Thatcher dead on 14:14 - Apr 12 with 1809 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Thatcher dead on 13:42 - Apr 12 by QPR_John |
Been out and have not had time to reply. This is an interesting argument and I see where you are coming from as I had not looked at it that way but what I find striking is that you use the same argument against VAT as you do the Poll Tax and you are right to do so. You could argue that VAT, using your criteria, is a more Iniquitous tax than the Poll tax, I think you would pay more through the former than the latter. There were no riots over the introduction of VAT and we quite happily lived with its predecessor purchase tax. Makes we wonder if the Poll tax riots were more political than altruistic [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|
I agree that VAT is the most iniquitous tax of them all, and how it's come to be politically and socially acceptable is beyond me, but it has.
Ya, I'd imagine there were plenty of the poll tax rioters who's motives were political alright. But it was a bad, bad tax and most of the demonstrators were peaceful. Sometimes we have views that are shared by both fools and princes, but our views are personal and care not what company they keep. |  |
| |
| Thatcher dead on 14:26 - Apr 12 with 1796 views | TacticalR |
| Thatcher dead on 14:10 - Apr 12 by Clive_Anderson |
"Yes she was mates with Pinochet. His was the original monetarist experiment, ten years before Thatcher tried it in Britain."
So they were both monetarists so they were mates. Er...ok.
I think you're getting a bit hysterical to be honest, which is normally a bit unlike you. I think the mere mention of Thatcher to some people gets them frothing at the mouth and it is impossible to discuss it rationally.
Anyway I really better go and do some work now so I'll stop exasperating everyone with my different opinions so you can now relax. |
You've missed the point (a great skill of yours by the way).
You were trying to deflect attention from Thatcher's personal friendship with the dictator by implying that Thatcher was only furthering British interests (and even if that were true her embrace of the dictator would not have been justified).
Their friendship is a matter of record, as are his annual visits to her house. Monetarism was their shared economic philosophy, and a key reason for their close relationship. | |
| |
| Thatcher dead on 15:07 - Apr 12 with 1759 views | Hunterhoop |
| Thatcher dead on 13:45 - Apr 12 by Clive_Anderson |
"Shutting most of the remaining mines, when there weren't other mines to go to and there weren't other jobs available, but when these mines still had plenty of coal to mine, is very different!! "
Yes I do agree with that statement. I just found it hard to believe that there were loads of mines in the 70s that were naturally closing down, but suddenly in the 80s there weren't any. I'd be interested in any figures you have for this. If you look at the numbers of mines that were closing it looked as though the trend was continuing under Thatcher as it had done before without any significant policy change:
1974 .. 250
1975 .. 241
1976 .. 239
1977 .. 231
1978 .. 223
1979 .. 219
1980 .. 213
1981 .. 200
1982 .. 191
1983 .. 170
1984 .. 169
1985 .. 133
1986 .. 110
1987 .. 94
1988 .. 86
1989 .. 73
So if 223 mines in 1978 closed naturally at the end of their usefulness then it seems reasonable to expect around 219 in the next year would close too.
"And the wider issue of state support for struggling sectors, whether they be transport, coal, financial, etc, is a bigger, wider ideological point. "
With the mining and other heavy industries they had tried state support over several decades and were still making heavy losses. I think it was obvious at that point that they weren't going to return to profit, so I guess the question then becomes how long should the support continue for? I'm not pretending to know the answer, but someone at some point it seems like you have to pull the plug.
Also there's the question of why there was more unemployment at the end of the 70s than at the start. After a decade of government subsidies to heavy industry unemployment was higher than at the start, so perhaps more subsidies weren't the answer (or even affordable). |
This is getting silly.
OF COURSE THE NUMBER OF MINES BEING CLOSED EACH YEAR REDUCES. IT'S BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF MINES IN EXISTENCE IS LESS.
The number isn't important. What's important is what % of the number of mines in existence closed each year. So 250 out of say 5,000 is bound not to have as big an impact as say 200 our of say 2,500.
And the absolutely key point, that Nadera and I have been trying to explain, is that there comes a tipping point in the closure of mines where the following happens:
- There are not enough other existing mines for those miners to go and work at
- Wider society can't employ them elsewhere due to a scarcity of jobs (and all previously appropriate jobs for ex-miners already having ex-miners in them already!)
You don't need numbers, data or anything else to understand this. It's logical, common sense.
This tipping point happened under Thatcher. And not only ignore this, she failed to provide any support to them and showed absolutely no care or compassion for their plight. That's why miners hate her.
And it was all simply to save the state money. Which, as we've discussed cannot be said to have saved more money over the decades than having those miners employed, paying taxes and contributing to greater consumer spending as well as set against the cost of importing coal. It's a ideological action not an economical one. Thatcher believed that industry should be able to stand on its own two feet and if it couldn't it didn't deserve to survive. IMO, this is an incredibly short sighted approach to economics. I think her approach to the wider manufacturing industry has been a complete failure and is signigicantly hampering us escape this recession (caused, in the long run, by her deregulation of the banks, incidently).
Effectively, we're saying that in the 60s, 70s and 80s it was necessary to "right-size" the mining industry to limit state expenditure supporting the industry whilst ensuring enough jobs were still provided so as to prevent mass unemployment.
The belief of miners is Thatcher went too far putting the "limiting of state expenditure" above all else.
Surely you can comprehend this position, whether you agree with it or not?! | | | |
| Thatcher dead on 15:27 - Apr 12 with 1739 views | Cliff |
| Thatcher dead on 14:10 - Apr 12 by Clive_Anderson |
"Yes she was mates with Pinochet. His was the original monetarist experiment, ten years before Thatcher tried it in Britain."
So they were both monetarists so they were mates. Er...ok.
I think you're getting a bit hysterical to be honest, which is normally a bit unlike you. I think the mere mention of Thatcher to some people gets them frothing at the mouth and it is impossible to discuss it rationally.
Anyway I really better go and do some work now so I'll stop exasperating everyone with my different opinions so you can now relax. |
Firstly don't go yet, I still want to pick holes in some of your arguments, especially your spurious use of graphs and data to illustrate your points 
I've been a bit busy today at work so haven't had any time to join in the debate but I will try and catch up.
For me the Pinochet / Thatcher friends or not debate is besides the point. Everyone with half a brain cell knew he was a wrong 'un, yet Thatcher defended him at every opportunity and as every one knows was instrumental in getting him freed when faced with extradition in this country. The question is not just why did she, but should she have.
The answer to why is generally accepted as being because he provided help in the Falklands conflict, the question I want answered is why? Dictators are not generally known for their altruism, so I can only assume he got something out of the arrangement, most likely the weakening of a powerful militaristic neighbor. I doubt in was in the hope that decades later he would be let off an extradition order.
For me no matter how much good you do in the world, help others etc, if you do evil or commit crimes then you should be brought to justice. No one on this board is suggesting that Jimmy Saville should be forgiven his crimes because of his charity work, and by the same token Pinochet should have been extradited to answer for his crimes, and Thatcher had no right to get him freed. She should instead have let him face the charges, and if she wanted to, appeared on his behalf as a defense witness. |  | | |
| Thatcher dead on 15:47 - Apr 12 with 1707 views | Cliff |
Still catching up!
There is a debate about why previous mine closures weren't resented as much as the one's Thatcher closed, perhaps this graph might say something about it
which shows the effect on unemployment. All of this was when we still need coal to generate electricity and run our industries.
Remember she didn't she didn't shut our coal fired electricity generators, and we even now have to import over 40 Million tonnes of coal a year to meet our needs.
| | | |
| Thatcher dead on 15:47 - Apr 12 with 1707 views | simmo |
Can we close this off pretty soon? Not that I dont enjoy a well balanced debate, but think of the poor guy that has to moderate this shite. No interest in the conent but reading through every post just in case....
She was a prick
She was great
She was better than some, worse than others
I am indifferent
Pick one.
Talk about something else. |  |
| ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead |
| |
| Thatcher dead on 17:14 - Apr 12 with 1653 views | MrSheen |
| Thatcher dead on 16:22 - Apr 12 by Cliff |
You say the poor wages did go up faster than inflation and then produce a graph as evidence that has no data regarding inflation 
The only thing that this graph shows is the lowest 10 of earners (both male and female) had very poor rises in the Thatcher years as shown by the bottom most two graphs which are almost flat, the not much better pay rises of the median earners (the middle two graphs), and the much steeper rises for the highest paid.
As best as I can read from this graph, in 1979 the poorest women wee paid about £175 a week and the men about £210-220. By 1990 these appear to have risen to about £200 and £250 respectively, or about 14% for women and 14 - 19% for men over 10 years.
if you are saying that there figures are above the rate of inflation then you are saying that inflation was below 1.9% consistently over the 10 years of Thatchers rule! |
These figures ARE inflation adjusted. It says "2008 prices" in the legend. I won't bother with the emoticon. |  | | |
| Thatcher dead on 17:46 - Apr 12 with 1630 views | TheBlob |
What's with the graphs?
Can someone put up a graph to show how f*cking tedious threads like these become?
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
