A Conversation for Margaret Thatcher - British Prime Minister 1979 - 1990
Researcher 174329 Started conversation May 14, 2001
I hope history is more objective about Thatcher than it has been so far.
It is disgusting that the shadow of that evil woman is still hanging over british politics today.
She was barely sane, she is now totally mad. She was a complete disaster as Prime Minister, her economic policies useless, her social policies bordering on facism.
When she dies I will be organising a party to dance on her grave - all welcome.
Researcher 174684 Posted May 16, 2001
That WAS an objective view!
By your comments, you're evidently heavily biased against Lady Thatcher and apparently unable to see any good that was achieved under her leadership.
Which isn't exactly going to make for a particularly unbiased or accurate report.
nilap1 Posted May 21, 2001
There is a general belief that THATCHER allowed the Falklands War to happen in the hope that it would enhance her chances in the coming General Election. Sadly in this ,she was prooved correct. May she rot in the hell to come.
Martin Harper Posted Jun 2, 2001
Gosh - isn't everyone being fair. It's amazing how quickly people forget such joys as the winter of discontent, and the 98% top rate of tax, isn't it?
And for all the dodgy privatisations, we've still got British Gas, British Telecom, British Airways, and plenty of others - turned from subsidy-draining loads on the tax payer to private companies which pay us a tidy sum of tax, and still manage to compete with the government-subsidised efforts in the rest of Europe.
Baby, Bath Water. *sigh*
nilap1 Posted Jun 4, 2001
If Thatcher was ever prooved to be a woman , you could also accuse me of being sexist. LOST. one teddy bear.
blue25 Posted Aug 29, 2001
what a load of old tosh.
margaret thatcher did a great deal to improve the lives of british people from across the so-called class divide. her determination and common sense enabled britain to turn around the mess left to us by the union-appeasing and hand-wringing liberal left.
in 2001 her occasional forays into the public domain cause widespread amusement. but how many pensioners do you know who do not harbour prejudiced or our-dated opinions of one kind or another?
thank her for her hard work and achievements. allow her occasional an pretence of influence and look forward to a future led by children of her era but not of her mind.
mozandmarr Posted Oct 10, 2001
The great paradox of Thatcher was shown up by her reaction to the BA tail paintings. She hated the loss of the Union flag from them yet it was her government that sold off BA meaning it had no connection to the nation! You cannot interfere with the market according to Thatcherism. However her accolytes want to stop economic migrants and foreign business from entering the UK. You have to question whether this makes sense or is just due to outright racism!
Daisyflip Posted Oct 11, 2001
Surely the most interesting thing about Thatcher is demonstrated on this site; the diverse and extreme opinions that she provoked. Years after the end of her rule people still have such passionate responces to her name that it's near impossible to find clear, unbiased information about her. This can only really said about the 'Iron Lady', I mean, does the thought of John Major make your blood boil?
Now that her rule is over, surely such dramatic outbursts are unnecessary and harmful? It's time to step back and look at her from an unbiased and political point of view. Yes, we should learn from her mistakes but also study her triumphs.
We don't live in a dictatorship. Anyone who suggests that we do has evidently lived a snug life and should try living in truely dangerous political states before they start whining about the hardships of British life.
Researcher 194573 Posted May 15, 2002
I agree totally with that, just to let you know!
Scattergun Posted Jun 24, 2002
When Maggie was a chemist, she worked on the formula for Mr Whippy ice-cream.
Scattergun (Tone-Lowerer to the Guide)
Researcher Who Refuses to Come Up With a Self-Consciously Ironic Name Posted Aug 15, 2002
well, 98% top rate of tax sounds like a damn good idea to me! stuff the rich b******s! heheh!
as for the winter of discontent, i wish i was old enough to remember it but i just have to hope the tide of unon militancy keeps rising, and doesn't get buggered by a labour govornment this time.
yuppies? some baby. yuk.
Martin Harper Posted Aug 16, 2002
The rich b*****ds who pay for much of this country. Which is as it should be, but there's no need to insult them while you're taking advantage of their tax revenue.
Researcher Who Refuses to Come Up With a Self-Consciously Ironic Name Posted Aug 18, 2002
the rich f*****g a******s take much more from this country (and the whole world) than they give. and i will keep insulting them for as long as i like.
Researcher 203508 Posted Sep 17, 2002
What else should we thank her for, the third generation of the unemployed from the mining communities she destroyed and left without any continuing support (or do you believe that Tebbit was on the money with his 'on your bike' attitude to the unemployed?). The fact that the average CEO earned around three times the salary of his average employee in the 70's but earns an average 350 times the average salary today? How about the fact that the average worker in London (on around £18k) has no chance to own their own home (wasn't this a major tennet of Thatcher economics ?) because the Yuppie era did exactly what it intended to do and disenfranchised the lower middle classes and the working class in favour of her laughable 'Upper-Middle Class'? How about all those people that live on subsistence pensions following a life of hard graft because they no longer fit into the picture (and many of these put money into pensions schemes only to see the value of these plummet in the 80's and 90's busts before they were paid out).
Perhaps we should thank her for her actions in the Falklands, after all that 'conflict' served the purpose of keeping her and the oppresive regime of Galtieri in power for a few more years.
And lets not forget that she is great personal friends with Pinochet (amongst other tin pot and extremely unpleasant dictators), and still wielding enough influence to help get him off the hook when arrested for crimes against Spanish nationals.
If it is all right with you I will reserve who I give my thanks to,
Fizzicist Posted Nov 5, 2002
May I politely suggest something to you all.
Instead of bitching and moaning about how unfair it all is, how you've been ripped off by those rich bastards who earn so much money, and get off your lazy arse and do something about it.
Those CEO's earning six figure sums got there by working bloody hard, making a lot of personal sacrifices to acheive everything they are capable of. Is it really fair that someone who has worked themselves as hard as possible should lose 98% percent of their earnings in tax? No. I think not. That actively discourages them working harder, it removes the incentive to work harder, to push the limits of what is possible.
I have no shame in saying I want to earn, what is technically known as, an absolute shitload of money. And I am going to have to work fking hard to do this. Which I am prepared to do. Now if the Government want to tax me 98% of my earnings then that's fine. I shall simply resort to living in the Isle of Man as a tax exile and contribute nothing to the economy instead.
May I remind you that when Thatcher came in, we had a 3 day working week, monumental unemployment, a state subsidised coal industry that cost the taxpayer billions, unions that ran the country and we were going backwards in economic terms. It was the Thatcherite government that gave this country the kick up the arse it needed. She lost the plot towards the end - the poll tax was a mistake. a BIG one. However, we are all still benefitting from the economic stability put into place by Ken Clarke when he was Chancellor.
She isn't fondly remembered at all but, she was what the country needed at the time. There is a free education system in this country, use it. I was at school in a crap end of Leeds, with a lot of people who bitch and moan about not getting the opportunity to do anything. They did. They chose not to use it, by ignoring their education.
Those at the top of the pile get there through bloody hard work. You could do that too - that's what free enterprise is all about.
Researcher 203508 Posted Nov 5, 2002
I think you might have made slightly better use of the free education system you seem to have so much faith in.
The 'stability' that Thatcher provided to our economy is surely a little suspect? Not sure if you were in the Isle of Man for the last couple of decades, but in the real world we live in a crippling cycle of boom and bust economics.
Free Enterprise is about the myth of acheivement through hard work. The real truth about the system we are involved in is that 95% of people have to fail to keep the top 5% rolling in cash. That is why Bill Gates has a personal wealth equal to the poorest 100 million Americans, that is why the US doubled their prison population in the last decade and now have 25% of the entire worlds prison population.
I am one of the 'haves', I earn a bundle, I had a great education, my moderately hard work has paid off pretty well, but that does not mean that I can ignore the suffering that my prosperity causes in others, I would much sooner pay higher taxes than see ever increasing numbers of people living in poverty and with no recourse to a decent education or hospital care when sick.
We needed Thatcher like we needed a collective hole in our heads.
Researcher 203508 Posted Nov 5, 2002
Oh yeah, also, I have met quite a few CEO's (not sure how many you have met) and let me tell you they are working no harder than a first year qualified nurse in an underfunded NHS hospital full of over paid accountants in the 'arse-end' of Leeds
Fizzicist Posted Nov 6, 2002
Well I'll give you the bit about accountancy being an overpaid profession...
I don't see how your prosperity is the cause of other people's suffering though - you are in a position to change that. Ultimately mankind is it's own worst enemy, and if a few more people worked a little harder at bettering their own situation rather than trying to push other people down, we'd all be better off.
Bill Gates can't be resented for his wealth though - he is a self made man, and more admirably than most, he has already stated that his children will not inherit his wealth, they will have to work. his fortune will be distributed to charoty in the event of his death.
I understand the resentment of people who inherit enormous wealth and contribute nothing, but people who earn their fortune by climing up the ladder...they deserve their own reward. Humans by our nature are aspirational and are always striving for new experiences and knowledge.
You don't get owt for nowt in life.
Researcher 203508 Posted Nov 7, 2002
But this still misses the point, for Bill Gates to be that wealthy a whole bunch of people need to be less wealthy. It is no coindidence that we see the numbers of millionaires (or billionaires or whatever the latest measure is) increasing proportionally to the the number of people living in poverty.
Take the example of the banking industry, how do banking CEO's improve figures and thereby the value of their stakeholdings and bonuses? By axing the jobs of many people that are struggling to make a living both in management positions and below. He gets richer, they all become much poorer, this is what is going on across the board.
I agree that people need to work hard, but the idea that working hard alone will provide you with a worthwhile future is flawed. A lot of the 120m Americans that were getting poorer while Gates was getting richer hold down two or more jobs just to pay the rent and keep food on the table.
This sort of an argument has been going on some time now, I tend not to get despondent because history teaches that a rebalancing will take place, I just hope it comes through peaceful means. Already the UK is taking the US option, lock everyone up that refuses to toe the line, lets see where we end up when we have condemed 30% of the population as a criminal underclass.
Fizzicist Posted Nov 8, 2002
Regarding people needing to be less wealthy for Bill Gates' wealth - not necessarily so, he has found a need people and businesses have and provided a solution - the money spent on his software wasn't earmarked for charity.
It would merely have been spent on perhaps less effecient industrial processes, costing more to run meaning the companies involved would either not exist as they're not economically viable, or we would in fact have a narrower spread of wealth than we do now.
Look back 30 years...things aren't quite so bad as we make out.
So what's the viable solution to capitalism then?
There isn't one. Human beings are by nature, competitive, violent, selfish beings. It is ingrained with in us to get one up on the next man - why do you think there are so many makes of car? A car is a functional item that gets us from A to B for minimal cost/fuss etc. Yet we have staggering diversity. Why?
Because humans are aspirational, we always want something better, everyone's ambitions are a little different. The political pendulum swing has become less extreme over the years as we both, left and right, seem to discover that centre ground politics is at best, the least offensive to both ideals.
However, my initial objection was that to refer to Thatcher's economic policies as a disaster is at best untrue. Britain was considerably healthier in 1989 than it was in 1979. And we are still reaping the rewards of the lessons learnt.
Key: Complain about this post
- 1: Researcher 174329 (May 14, 2001)
- 2: Researcher 174684 (May 16, 2001)
- 3: nilap1 (May 21, 2001)
- 4: Martin Harper (Jun 2, 2001)
- 5: nilap1 (Jun 4, 2001)
- 6: blue25 (Aug 29, 2001)
- 7: mozandmarr (Oct 10, 2001)
- 8: Daisyflip (Oct 11, 2001)
- 9: Researcher 194573 (May 15, 2002)
- 10: Scattergun (Jun 24, 2002)
- 11: Researcher Who Refuses to Come Up With a Self-Consciously Ironic Name (Aug 15, 2002)
- 12: Martin Harper (Aug 16, 2002)
- 13: Researcher Who Refuses to Come Up With a Self-Consciously Ironic Name (Aug 18, 2002)
- 14: Researcher 203508 (Sep 17, 2002)
- 15: Fizzicist (Nov 5, 2002)
- 16: Researcher 203508 (Nov 5, 2002)
- 17: Researcher 203508 (Nov 5, 2002)
- 18: Fizzicist (Nov 6, 2002)
- 19: Researcher 203508 (Nov 7, 2002)
- 20: Fizzicist (Nov 8, 2002)