Mrs Thatcher Dead

[Red-Robbo]

There is an alternative view Robbo. When I left school in the early 70s (1970s) if you had a bit of something about you and ambition you found a job in the private sector because it paid more and if you worked hard you could get promoted and get a better job. Those with zero ambition got a job with the Gas Board, Electricity Board, The GPO or the Railways because it was cushy and you had a job for life. Big generalisation I know but that was how me and most of my schoolchums felt.

Having seen BT at close quarters the waste was criminal all because it didn't have to compete. As a consumer you had nowhere else to go, if your phone line took two months hard luck.

By privatising and opening up competition allowing international and British companies like Plessey and STC to sell direct to the end user it gave me and a whole generation the chance to work for these companies and many new ones and make a good living. This forced BT (as it is now) to start behaving like a proper company instead of a protected fossil and stop throwing money down the pan.

In the mid seventies I spent some time in communist Czekoslovakia where everything was state run - it was like turning the clock back 50 years.

As for energy, I don't know but we pay more for everything now and at least you can jump on some swich website to see if a better deal can be had. I worry that going back to the days where we had British Gas and the Electricity Board would recreate the grossly over-staffed holiday camp companies with the "if you don't like it tough luck" attitudes.

I do take your point EIW - many, many moons ago I had a brief stint in the Civil Service and all you say applied there. HOWEVER, it was understood that working in the public sector was something of a faustian bargain - you gave up the chances of earning really big money in return for job security and a decent pension if you spent your lifetime there.

As part of the Tory's mania for demonizing sectors of society to divide and rule, we've all been instructed to hate the public sector with their "gold-plated pensions" and "cushy" jobs. In fact people routinely trot out the cannard that public sector work is higher paid than private sector is. This is inevitably supported by "statistics show".

Of course stats show that: most of the very lowest paid occupations - part-time shop assistants; stable girls; seasonal farm labourers etc - are in the private sector.But compare like-for-like jobs and a different picture emerges: Doctors and nurses earn more in private hospitals than in the NHS; Teachers earn more at private rather than state schools and even directors of private companies usually earn more than those with similar managerial duties in the Civil Service.

So, if you want to get better public sector workers you have to pay them more - otherwise only the worst people will take jobs there. Nowadays the work carries no job security, significantly eroded pensions and the pay gap with alternative private sector careers has widened to a chasm. The situation will get like it was when I lived in America where everytime you had to deal with a state or federal employee, you were dealing with a cretin.

Your paragraph on the big bonuses brought to the telecomms sector by "opening it up to competition" doesn't quite convince me either. BT still have a monopoly on the exchange provision and in superfast broadband rollout. BTs money vacuum attitude explains why UK consumers pay more for phone calls and enjoy worse connection speeds than most other Western Europeans. It may be a 'market' but it's a very imperfect one and it is frequently criticised by the Science & Technology Committee.

Of course there are a lot worse 'natural monopoly public services' that should never have been privatised - water, the national grid and the railways to name but three.

[Portland Bill]

I know that had Joe Gormley still been leader of the Miners' Union then the miners would probably never have suffered such a terrible and total defeat.

I don't think it would have made a scrap of difference who was leader of the NUM at the time.

Thatcher and her bully boys ( her blue army) would make sure of that.

She was determined to destroy the union, It was something she wanted to do at ANY cost.

Parts of the UK even became a Police state,freedom of movement is a democratic right but this was even stopped in parts of the country.

Aid for the miners families was even stopped on motorways and seized by the Police.

South Yorkshire became like Chile and South Africa, where the Police dictated, this under orders from you know who.

Scargill was democratically voted in by the people of his Union, and the majority backed him till the end,whereas Thatchers party couldn't wait to get rid of her!

[Mr Mosquito]

I don't think it would have made a scrap of difference who was leader of the NUM at the time.

Thatcher and her bully boys ( her blue army) would make sure of that.

She was determined to destroy the union, It was something she wanted to do at ANY cost.

Parts of the UK even became a Police state,freedom of movement is a democratic right but this was even stopped in parts of the country.

Aid for the miners families was even stopped on motorways and seized by the Police.

South Yorkshire became like Chile and South Africa, where the Police dictated, this under orders from you know who.

Scargill was democratically voted in by the people of his Union, and the majority backed him till the end,whereas Thatchers party couldn't wait to get rid of her!

At the end of the day, things were bad enough in Bristol as it was for my generation under Thatcher during the mid and early 80s. I remember how difficult it was getting a job. Things would have been far worse had Bristol been a coal mining area. The Police in South Africa recently shot dead a few dozen striking miners. Why do the authorities hate miners so much ????

[Eco]

I do take your point EIW - many, many moons ago I had a brief stint in the Civil Service and all you say applied there. HOWEVER, it was understood that working in the public sector was something of a faustian bargain - you gave up the chances of earning really big money in return for job security and a decent pension if you spent your lifetime there.

As part of the Tory's mania for demonizing sectors of society to divide and rule, we've all been instructed to hate the public sector with their "gold-plated pensions" and "cushy" jobs. In fact people routinely trot out the cannard that public sector work is higher paid than private sector is. This is inevitably supported by "statistics show".

Of course stats show that: most of the very lowest paid occupations - part-time shop assistants; stable girls; seasonal farm labourers etc - are in the private sector.But compare like-for-like jobs and a different picture emerges: Doctors and nurses earn more in private hospitals than in the NHS; Teachers earn more at private rather than state schools and even directors of private companies usually earn more than those with similar managerial duties in the Civil Service.

So, if you want to get better public sector workers you have to pay them more - otherwise only the worst people will take jobs there. Nowadays the work carries no job security, significantly eroded pensions and the pay gap with alternative private sector careers has widened to a chasm. The situation will get like it was when I lived in America where everytime you had to deal with a state or federal employee, you were dealing with a cretin.

Your paragraph on the big bonuses brought to the telecomms sector by "opening it up to competition" doesn't quite convince me either. BT still have a monopoly on the exchange provision and in superfast broadband rollout. BTs money vacuum attitude explains why UK consumers pay more for phone calls and enjoy worse connection speeds than most other Western Europeans. It may be a 'market' but it's a very imperfect one and it is frequently criticised by the Science & Technology Committee.

Of course there are a lot worse 'natural monopoly public services' that should never have been privatised - water, the national grid and the railways to name but three.

I'm pretty sure I read that RBS staff salaries are now counted as Public Sector which would inevitably increase the average !

[Mr Mosquito]

I do take your point EIW - many, many moons ago I had a brief stint in the Civil Service and all you say applied there. HOWEVER, it was understood that working in the public sector was something of a faustian bargain - you gave up the chances of earning really big money in return for job security and a decent pension if you spent your lifetime there.

As part of the Tory's mania for demonizing sectors of society to divide and rule, we've all been instructed to hate the public sector with their "gold-plated pensions" and "cushy" jobs. In fact people routinely trot out the cannard that public sector work is higher paid than private sector is. This is inevitably supported by "statistics show".

Of course stats show that: most of the very lowest paid occupations - part-time shop assistants; stable girls; seasonal farm labourers etc - are in the private sector.But compare like-for-like jobs and a different picture emerges: Doctors and nurses earn more in private hospitals than in the NHS; Teachers earn more at private rather than state schools and even directors of private companies usually earn more than those with similar managerial duties in the Civil Service.

So, if you want to get better public sector workers you have to pay them more - otherwise only the worst people will take jobs there. Nowadays the work carries no job security, significantly eroded pensions and the pay gap with alternative private sector careers has widened to a chasm. The situation will get like it was when I lived in America where everytime you had to deal with a state or federal employee, you were dealing with a cretin.

Your paragraph on the big bonuses brought to the telecomms sector by "opening it up to competition" doesn't quite convince me either. BT still have a monopoly on the exchange provision and in superfast broadband rollout. BTs money vacuum attitude explains why UK consumers pay more for phone calls and enjoy worse connection speeds than most other Western Europeans. It may be a 'market' but it's a very imperfect one and it is frequently criticised by the Science & Technology Committee.

Of course there are a lot worse 'natural monopoly public services' that should never have been privatised - water, the national grid and the railways to name but three.

Great post Red-Robbo. I've emboldened part-time shop assistants; stable girls; seasonal farm labourers from your post - no coincidence that these low paid jobs are found on the estates of mega rich land owning Tories. The trick for the Tories is to get enough votes to form a majority government so their landowning elite 10% can continue to live an almost feudal high life with the other 90% at the level of serfs. Margaret Thatcher was an expert at winning votes from the non aristocratic/plutocratic serf like population for the Tories. That's why I find UKIP so appealing as not only are they filtering off massive votes from the Tories but by leaving the EU these land owning Tories will then not get their massive EU Common Agricultural Policy grants - that we as beleaguered British taxpayers pay for.

[marshy]

Great post Red-Robbo. I've emboldened part-time shop assistants; stable girls; seasonal farm labourers from your post - no coincidence that these low paid jobs are found on the estates of mega rich land owning Tories. The trick for the Tories is to get enough votes to form a majority government so their landowning elite 10% can continue to live an almost feudal high life with the other 90% at the level of serfs. Margaret Thatcher was an expert at winning votes from the non aristocratic/plutocratic serf like population for the Tories. That's why I find UKIP so appealing as not only are they filtering off massive votes from the Tories but by leaving the EU these land owning Tories will then not get their massive EU Common Agricultural Policy grants - that we as beleaguered British taxpayers pay for.

It's hardly surprising that these are low paid/minimum wage jobs. If shop assistants are part-time they will obviously earn less, stable girls, at least the one I know, has such a love of her job that she would probably do it for far less, and seasonal farm labourers are now largely foreigners who are happy for the work. Couldn't agree more about EU subsidies. The CAP has been a disgrace for decades and is the reason that French agriculture is almost three times the size of ours as a proportion of GDP, 1.9% as against our 0.7%. Perhaps surprisingly to many our much maligned secondary (indusrial) sector is larger than that of France, 21.1% as against 18.3%, and even larger than that of the USA at 19.1%.

As for 90% of the population living at the level of serfs I'm not sure where you get that figure from. Maybe I've misread or misinterpreted your post.

[Mr Mosquito]

It's hardly surprising that these are low paid/minimum wage jobs. If shop assistants are part-time they will obviously earn less, stable girls, at least the one I know, has such a love of her job that she would probably do it for far less, and seasonal farm labourers are now largely foreigners who are happy for the work. Couldn't agree more about EU subsidies. The CAP has been a disgrace for decades and is the reason that French agriculture is almost three times the size of ours as a proportion of GDP, 1.9% as against our 0.7%. Perhaps surprisingly to many our much maligned secondary (indusrial) sector is larger than that of France, 21.1% as against 18.3%, and even larger than that of the USA at 19.1%.

As for 90% of the population living at the level of serfs I'm not sure where you get that figure from. Maybe I've misread or misinterpreted your post.

'Serf' is an ancient word defined as a person in a condition of servitude, required to render services to a Lord, commonly attached to the Lord's land and transferred with it from one Lordly owner to another. A modern serf describes most of us with a feudal Lord now being a company owner for instance. When the owner sells the company the employee (serf) then gets a new Lord or 'owner' as is the modern equivalent. Serfdom is thus an ancient term describing the modern predicament of many employees these days. The European Union project endorses the use of serfs in agriculture where a serf from Eastern Europe can now be sent to England for servitude to a Tory landowner via the free movement of labour and capital ideology of the EU.

[real_bristol]

Yes, we could go back to having nearly full employment,communities that care, people in work having rights. The right to strike without having to wait 3 months.

A society that cared,no Vat, council houses that go to the poorer in society............

Bill, I think you are doing well arguing your point. I should point out that I wasn't born through all the 70s discontent, I'm an 80s child but my Dad was in the thick of it so to speak and as you would expect I tend to take his Thatcherite view on things, I also studied economics so have been educated to some degree about the Iron Lady. I do like to see the other side of the argument though so if you would clear up a few things for me:

1) Where do you draw the line. Full employment is only really possible in a command economy, which is or should be self sustainable. Would you rather we were like N.Korea? Isolated from the rest of the world, fending for ourselves, but its alright because we've all got jobs that don't necessarily add anything in terms of productivity. What are your views on reports that workers at Leyland DAF were clocking in and then kipping in their cars, and that there were 3x as many workers there than were needed?

2) Could we really go on mining coal at the level we were? We couldn't sell it on the international market at the price we needed to to pay the miners, so that leaves using it all for power generation, something that is now frowned upon from an environment perspective. So eventually we would have had to reduce coal mining anyway.

3) What is your stance on globalisation? I mean if the government continued to set the wages in accordance with union requests we would have been unatractive to inward investment, not that we would need it in a state run economy. Would you have attempted to impliment an export only policy?

4) Could you only get a job if you knew someone in a union? What if you didn't want to strike and you were happy with current pay and conditions?

5) what would a socialist, closed economy look like today? Would we all be on the same wage, regardless of whether we've spent 7 years trying to learn how to be a doctor of medicine, or 7 days trying to get in with a union rep down at the local factory? Would we be allowed to go on holiday abroad for fear that our minds may be corrupted on witnessing the benefits of a free market economy?

6)Would we be Argentinian?

Just to be clear I'm not looking for an argument although I accept that the last point is a tad pedantic, but I just like to get a balanced view on things and these views above are a bit one sided, as you can probably tell.

[real_bristol]

Perhaps surprisingly to many our much maligned secondary (indusrial) sector is larger than that of France, 21.1% as against 18.3%, and even larger than that of the USA at 19.1%.

This cannot be right because Thatcher "destroyed" British industry

[Esmond Million's Bung]

All I am seeing from the socialists in this debate is rhetoric against the tories, I have yet to see how 15 years of new labour changed anything for the working man, they perpetuated Thatcherism and managed to widen the poverty gap, they abandoned the middle class and the working class.

All I have seen is fleeting mentions of education and yet the changes they made were not even good enough for the left wing firebrand Diane Abbott to send her kid to state schools and I also recall many other new labour mp's even getting preferential treatment by getting around the post code lottery by using the 'do you know who I am'? card including Blair himself.

Perhaps a little balance might strengthen your argument in as much as new labour were actually no better and possibly worse, illegal war ignoring the mounting banking crisis despite warnings and their abandonment of their own core support, it didn't even take their then cool Britannia comrades to see what was they were actually doing and publicly denounce them and claim they were conned.

if the minimum wage is the only real socialist policy to emerge in 15 years of new labour that is a not very good legacy really is it, so come on you socialists balance your rhetoric about the illegal war and how the gap between rich and poor widened and admit that new labour let the true socialists who voted for them down big style.

[Portland Bill]

Bill, I think you are doing well arguing your point. I should point out that I wasn't born through all the 70s discontent, I'm an 80s child but my Dad was in the thick of it so to speak and as you would expect I tend to take his Thatcherite view on things, I also studied economics so have been educated to some degree about the Iron Lady. I do like to see the other side of the argument though so if you would clear up a few things for me:

1) Where do you draw the line. Full employment is only really possible in a command economy, which is or should be self sustainable. Would you rather we were like N.Korea? Isolated from the rest of the world, fending for ourselves, but its alright because we've all got jobs that don't necessarily add anything in terms of productivity. What are your views on reports that workers at Leyland DAF were clocking in and then kipping in their cars, and that there were 3x as many workers there than were needed?

2) Could we really go on mining coal at the level we were? We couldn't sell it on the international market at the price we needed to to pay the miners, so that leaves using it all for power generation, something that is now frowned upon from an environment perspective. So eventually we would have had to reduce coal mining anyway.

3) What is your stance on globalisation? I mean if the government continued to set the wages in accordance with union requests we would have been unatractive to inward investment, not that we would need it in a state run economy. Would you have attempted to impliment an export only policy?

4) Could you only get a job if you knew someone in a union? What if you didn't want to strike and you were happy with current pay and conditions?

5) what would a socialist, closed economy look like today? Would we all be on the same wage, regardless of whether we've spent 7 years trying to learn how to be a doctor of medicine, or 7 days trying to get in with a union rep down at the local factory? Would we be allowed to go on holiday abroad for fear that our minds may be corrupted on witnessing the benefits of a free market economy?

6)Would we be Argentinian?

Just to be clear I'm not looking for an argument although I accept that the last point is a tad pedantic, but I just like to get a balanced view on things and these views above are a bit one sided, as you can probably tell.

1, I was stating that mass unemployment followed Thatcher, unemployment levels were low under Labour, but the Tories actually used Labours unemployment rates in there advertisement campaign ( labour isn't working) unbelievable.

2, all I will say on that is, why did we then start importing millions of tons of coal from abroad ?

3,Unions then and now always look to get the best deal they can for its members, what's the problem with that.

4,anyone could get a job, yes there was "close shops" but personally I was never aware of anyone getting a job because they were in a union.

But, employers did have blacklists where they would not employ union members.

5, haha, I think you need to stop reading the Daily Mail.

6, I've put a few facts on this thread re the Falklands War, here's another one for you.in 1980 and 81 the Labour Party lead the opinion polls by a massive margin, intact there poll ratings got as high as 56% ( fact ) the Tories under a new Thatcher Government averaging high 20's low 30's.

So why do you think we went to War, and why do you think that she sent out the message to Argentina that The UK were not interested in the Falklands ( through policy's such as TAKING AWAY Falkland islanders British Citizenship and replacing it with a limited version) and scrapping HMS Endurance the ONLY link we had with the Islands?

Your Dad may want to help you on that one!

Has he told you about the time there was 5 MILLION of us on the dole, because of Thatchers policy's ?

[marshy]

This cannot be right because Thatcher "destroyed" British industry

So they would have us believe. I prefer to use the word 'reinvigorated'. It simply couldn't go on the way it was.

[Portland Bill]

if the minimum wage is the only real socialist policy to emerge in 15 years of new labour that is a not very good legacy really is it, so come on you socialists balance your rhetoric about the illegal war and how the gap between rich and poor widened and admit that new labour let the true socialists who voted for them down big style.

Esmond, I do agree with a lot of what your saying, the last Labour gov let us down big time, but with a right wing leader thats what happened.

Why weren't the Thatcher anti Union laws repelled etc. a few good things were done, but it wasn't the Labour gov that I wanted.

I quit the Labour Party recently due to there apathy re "workfare". I'm at the stage where none of the main party's represent me.

Socialist Labour is now my choice, but I don't think they will have a candidate in Somerset.

So all I have left is OTIB

[Esmond Million's Bung]

1, I was stating that mass unemployment followed Thatcher, unemployment levels were low under Labour, but the Tories actually used Labours unemployment rates in there advertisement campaign ( labour isn't working) unbelievable.

2, all I will say on that is, why did we then start importing millions of tons of coal from abroad ?

3,Unions then and now always look to get the best deal they can for its members, what's the problem with that.

4,anyone could get a job, yes there was "close shops" but personally I was never aware of anyone getting a job because they were in a union.

But, employers did have blacklists where they would not employ union members.

5, haha, I think you need to stop reading the Daily Mail.

6, I've put a few facts on this thread re the Falklands War, here's another one for you.in 1980 and 81 the Labour Party lead the opinion polls by a massive margin, intact there poll ratings got as high as 56% ( fact ) the Tories under a new Thatcher Government averaging high 20's low 30's.

So why do you think we went to War, and why do you think that she sent out the message to Argentina that The UK were not interested in the Falklands ( through policy's such as TAKING AWAY Falkland islanders British Citizenship and replacing it with a limited version) and scrapping HMS Endurance the ONLY link we had with the Islands?

Your Dad may want to help you on that one!

Has he told you about the time there was 5 MILLION of us on the dole, because of Thatchers policy's ?

1) Agree, but I'm sure just like the banking crisis, the claim would be the Millen defence, 'didn't see that coming'

2) Because it was cheaper than our own coal

3) The problem with the miners was They got 35% in 1973 on a promise they didn't come back for more and within less than a year guess what they were back and got another 35% in 1975 and that also answers question 2

4) Closed shops were totally against peoples human rights, so even you cannot defend closed shops, I know cos I was in one for a while.

5) The daily mail fall back position, when all else is lost.

6) Whatever the lead up to the Falklands is/was, it was still a legal and winnable war, unlike a few others I could mention.

[reddevon]

All I am seeing from the socialists in this debate is rhetoric against the tories, I have yet to see how 15 years of new labour changed anything for the working man, they perpetuated Thatcherism and managed to widen the poverty gap, they abandoned the middle class and the working class.

All I have seen is fleeting mentions of education and yet the changes they made were not even good enough for the left wing firebrand Diane Abbott to send her kid to state schools and I also recall many other new labour mp's even getting preferential treatment by getting around the post code lottery by using the 'do you know who I am'? card including Blair himself.

Perhaps a little balance might strengthen your argument in as much as new labour were actually no better and possibly worse, illegal war ignoring the mounting banking crisis despite warnings and their abandonment of their own core support, it didn't even take their then cool Britannia comrades to see what was they were actually doing and publicly denounce them and claim they were conned.

if the minimum wage is the only real socialist policy to emerge in 15 years of new labour that is a not very good legacy really is it, so come on you socialists balance your rhetoric about the illegal war and how the gap between rich and poor widened and admit that new labour let the true socialists who voted for them down big style.

Come on Esmond , I think the debate is about what Thatcher did or didn't do for this country. and why she is being afforded this God like status and send-off, not what sucessive governments have achieved.

The "poverty gap" may have widened under sucessive governments due to the rich getting richer.

Thatcher doubled the %age of the population living in poverty during her tenure, (which was subsequently reduced under the next government).

Under her tenure Manufacturing jobs reduced by almost 50% from just under 5m to 2.75m.

Schools and Hospitals went unrepaired/replaced and Urban areas were left in decline.

Unemployment rose at an alarming rate, from which we have struggled to recover, causing generational unemployment in many areas.

I see nothing in her CV that would move me to employing her in the job again on her undoubted second coming!

In addition could you please let me know of which Court ruled on this supposed "illegal war" that you mention.

[marshy]

And this present Tory government are seeking to repeal the minimum wage.

They have already diminished legal representation for those less well off and eradicated employment rights (many people will have a rude awakening as to how much they need union representation whilst having fallen for Tory brainwashing).

This Tory government will make Thatcher look like Mother Theresa in comparison. The Lib Dems should hang their heads in shame for collaborating in such heinous ideology.

There's no minimum wage in Germany or in several other successful economies.

[Eco]

There's no minimum wage in Germany or in several other successful economies.

Possibly due to companies/employers paying decent salaries ?

[marshy]

'Serf' is an ancient word defined as a person in a condition of servitude, required to render services to a Lord, commonly attached to the Lord's land and transferred with it from one Lordly owner to another. A modern serf describes most of us with a feudal Lord now being a company owner for instance. When the owner sells the company the employee (serf) then gets a new Lord or 'owner' as is the modern equivalent. Serfdom is thus an ancient term describing the modern predicament of many employees these days. The European Union project endorses the use of serfs in agriculture where a serf from Eastern Europe can now be sent to England for servitude to a Tory landowner via the free movement of labour and capital ideology of the EU.

This seems to be a highly fanciful interpretation RG. 'Man is born free but is everywhere in chains' as Rousseau put it. Perhaps we'd all be better off throwing away these shackles of serfdom and roaming the land as vagabonds with our begging bowls.

[reddevon]

There's no minimum wage in Germany or in several other successful economies.

Perhaps that is due to them having pretty strong Workers Councils.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Esmond, I do agree with a lot of what your saying, the last Labour gov let us down big time, but with a right wing leader thats what happened.

Why weren't the Thatcher anti Union laws repelled etc. a few good things were done, but it wasn't the Labour gov that I wanted.

I quit the Labour Party recently due to there apathy re "workfare". I'm at the stage where none of the main party's represent me.

Socialist Labour is now my choice, but I don't think they will have a candidate in Somerset.

So all I have left is OTIB

Thanks for that Bill, very enlightening and honest.

As for the politics I have been accused me of being a daily mail reader and a right winger, on the first point I have never in my life bought the daily mail and I believe I have an alibi for the right winger accusation.

Firstly I am an atheist, secondly I am an anti-monarchist I have no time for the royal family, I am pro-immigration (as long as we know who is actually coming in and why), I am broadly pro-european and believe that our stance under Blair with the USA was not only damaging to our standing in europe but in the world at large and I wholly believe in bringing our law makers and politicians to account.

So I believe my views are if anything leaning more towards the left, I certainly wouldn’t get a safe tory seat, a job with the daily mail, entry to the BNP, KKK or the free masons, but I call it as I see it and you know what to expect from the tories there is more than enough history to support that but when a labour/new labour government come in just carry on with broadly the same policies, embroil us 1 unwinnable war and another illegal war, countenance kidnap and torture and allow the poverty gap to widen, that hypocrisy of treacherous proportions.

As for your last sentence, me too .

[marshy]

Possibly due to companies/employers paying decent salaries ?

I think you'll find that since the mid-90s the German unions co-operated with their eployers to restrain wages and to instigate reforms to improve productivity. A far sighted approach and far different to the situation that Thatcher faced. This is an interesting link.

http://thespellmanreport.com/2012/03/30/the-supply-side/

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Come on Esmond , I think the debate is about what Thatcher did or didn't do for this country. and why she is being afforded this God like status and send-off, not what sucessive governments have achieved.

The "poverty gap" may have widened under sucessive governments due to the rich getting richer.

Thatcher doubled the %age of the population living in poverty during her tenure, (which was subsequently reduced under the next government).

Under her tenure Manufacturing jobs reduced by almost 50% from just under 5m to 2.75m.

Schools and Hospitals went unrepaired/replaced and Urban areas were left in decline.

Unemployment rose at an alarming rate, from which we have struggled to recover, causing generational unemployment in many areas.

I see nothing in her CV that would move me to employing her in the job again on her undoubted second coming!

In addition could you please let me know of which Court ruled on this supposed "illegal war" that you mention.

on your first point I couldn't agree more, I just find the parties and celebrations distasteful.

Manufacturing was going down the pan for 15/20 years because of strikes, excessive wage demands and successive governments caving in, basically as RG states re-Joe Gormley union leaders slowly but surely priced themselves out of the world manufacturing market.

Schools and hospitals were going unrepaired for many years before the Thatcher was elected.

and I see even less in Blairs CV to employ him as a middle east peace envoy in fact quite the contrary, it's a total insult and as a so called socialist he did far more harm to the UK, because people expected more.

Your last point about the Iraq war, that is a joke isn't it?, he was going war come what may, had WMD been found he might have been able to say I told you so, but it wasn't and he knew there weren't any and now he claim Iraq is a safer place.

[reddevon]

on your first point I couldn't agree more, I just find the parties and celebrations distasteful.

Manufacturing was going down the pan for 15/20 years because of strikes, excessive wage demands and successive governments caving in, basically as RG states re-Joe Gormley union leaders slowly but surely priced themselves out of the world manufacturing market.

Schools and hospitals were going unrepaired for many years before the Thatcher was elected.

and I see even less in Blairs CV to employ him as a middle east peace envoy in fact quite the contrary, it's a total insult and as a so called socialist he did far more harm to the UK, because people expected more.

Your last point about the Iraq war, that is a joke isn't it?, he was going war come what may, had WMD been found he might have been able to say I told you so, but it wasn't and he knew there weren't any and now he claim Iraq is a safer place.

I agree with you on many of your points on the pre-Thatcher era around manufacturing and infastructure, schools, hospitals etc.

My point is that she did nothing about it other than to destroy industry and its related communities with no thought of regeneration,innovation, negotiation or compromise and therefore in my eyes will be the worst Prime Minister in my life-time (Harold Wilson during my schooldays)

My last point is not a joke - it erks me that the word "illegal" is almost always pre-fixed in any discussion around Iraq, mainly made popular by that pr*t Galloway. You can agree or not the merits of the Iraq campaign but it to my knowledge has not been proved "illegal".

[marshy]

I agree with you on many of your points on the pre-Thatcher era around manufacturing and infastructure, schools, hospitals etc.

My point is that she did nothing about it other than to destroy industry and its related communities with no thought of regeneration,innovation, negotiation or compromise and therefore in my eyes will be the worst Prime Minister in my life-time (Harold Wilson during my schooldays)

My last point is not a joke - it erks me that the word "illegal" is almost always pre-fixed in any discussion around Iraq, mainly made popular by that pr*t Galloway. You can agree or not the merits of the Iraq campaign but it to my knowledge has not been proved "illegal".

Manufacturing output actually increased under Thatcher as it did also under Major. These are undeniable facts even though they may impinge upon people's political prejudice. With regard to the destruction of communities it is difficult to judge at which point the taxpayer should cease to be responsible for propping up inefficient industry. I'm sure my tolerance threshold would be far lower than yours especially as at the time industry was stuffed full of belligerent Union members with a Luddite mentality.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I agree with you on many of your points on the pre-Thatcher era around manufacturing and infastructure, schools, hospitals etc.

My point is that she did nothing about it other than to destroy industry and its related communities with no thought of regeneration,innovation, negotiation or compromise and therefore in my eyes will be the worst Prime Minister in my life-time (Harold Wilson during my schooldays)

My last point is not a joke - it erks me that the word "illegal" is almost always pre-fixed in any discussion around Iraq, mainly made popular by that pr*t Galloway. You can agree or not the merits of the Iraq campaign but it to my knowledge has not been proved "illegal".

The war was totally based on lies and lies that Blair was well aware of and lies that Blair tried to get his secret services to sex up, correct there has never been a court case, but the war was as illegal as it could have been, the UK and U S of A even twisted the UN resolution to suit their own purposes, it was a war the USA needed and Blair followed blindly along with and that will always be his legacy.

[bucksred]

Destroyed lives, but also did a a lot of good.

I think it is sad people will demonise her in death, she worked damn hard from a working class baker background to get to where she did. The plummy voice all added after she got into politics because the institution would not accept her any other way, and took hell of a lot of abuse getting where she did, especially in the era she did it.

I can understand why a lot affected by her choices hate her, but I only wish we had politicians that stood up for what they believed and the backbone to stand up for theri country the way she did.

Very well said, gave this country back its pride.

[reddevon]

Manufacturing output actually increased under Thatcher as it did also under Major. These are undeniable facts even though they may impinge upon people's political prejudice. With regard to the destruction of communities it is difficult to judge at which point the taxpayer should cease to be responsible for propping up inefficient industry. I'm sure my tolerance threshold would be far lower than yours especially as at the time industry was stuffed full of belligerent Union members with a Luddite mentality.

Marshy, I concede as a fact that Manufacturing ouput was higher at the end of her tenure than it was at the start. (although with inflation there probably wasn't much in it)

The problem was that in 6/7 successive years during her tenure it nosedived and has barely recovered.

The cronic lack of replacement,,investment in new technology and assets during those years.meant we have struggled since.

A planned and negotiated movement to new industry was neded in the 80's to take advantage of the new world consumer boom, not selling scapping and overusage of our manufacturing and natural assets.

[reddevon]

The war was totally based on lies and lies that Blair was well aware of and lies that Blair tried to get his secret services to sex up, correct there has never been a court case, but the war was as illegal as it could have been, the UK and U S of A even twisted the UN resolution to suit their own purposes, it was a war the USA needed and Blair followed blindly along with and that will always be his legacy.

You may well be right in your comments on how the invasion came about and I welcome your comment on the court situation.

My view is it is to early yet to judge on the legacy issue, perhaps at some stage we will as the Iraqi's themselves.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

You may well be right in your comments on how the invasion came about and I welcome your comment on the court situation.

My view is it is to early yet to judge on the legacy issue, perhaps at some stage we will as the Iraqi's themselves.

Perhaps the families of the dead might have a view?.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/04/201341211353718947.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57575040/bombings-in-iraq-kill-65-a-decade-after-u.s-invasion/

[havanatopia]

A planned and negotiated movement to new industry was neded in the 80's to take advantage of the new world consumer boom, not selling scapping and overusage of our manufacturing and natural assets.

I think if you dig deep enough plenty of incentives were in place during the 80's to encourage entrepreneurship. And lets face it we live in a free market economy not a 'planned' one as would have been required to do what you are advocating which, history tells us, has generally been an abject failure.

Lots of successful businesses started in the 1980's. Mine was one of them and I thank the incumbent Gov't of the day for making that a little more easier because the word 'a little' is all a gov't can do; it can nudge, cajole, encourage and lay the ground work but if the populace do not take that encouragement and prefer to whinge about cut backs in benefit or the lack of run of the mill jobs that all need to be carried out you need to go back to the end of second world war for where the problems really and truly began. The years from 1945 through 1979 were merely papering over the cracks and hoping for a better day. It was not until one person said we need to tackle overmanning, we need to tackle inefficient and massively loss making industries and actually do something about it that we avoided the precipice. For many it was hard, very hard but the alternative was certain bankruptcy and another IMF bailout.