Geoff Kilpatrick Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/30/30-year-rule-thatcher-papers-released Interesting stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Hahaha setting up an asylum island just like Hitler wanted to do by sending the Jews to Madagascar! That woman was/is insane! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Spackler Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 She was decisive. Last ****ing one that was. I'll take independence thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Hayden Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Evil personified Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/30/30-year-rule-thatcher-papers-released Interesting stuff! Would be good to see the actual papers. Horrible **** of a woman! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Only a Game Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Not a huge fan but she did some good things in power Played the IRA at their own game. Dirty tricks, ambush and state sanctioned summary execution. Sorted the Argies right out Broke the unions that were strangling the country Made it more affordable, more possible and more desirable to buy your own home. Fecked up majorly with the council tax and took things way too far with the miners. Cant think of much else that was either very good or very bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rab Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Put in the context of where the UK and the rest of the world were in 1979, I think it shows someone far ahead of their time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted December 30, 2009 Author Share Posted December 30, 2009 Selected papers here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomber Harris' Best Mate Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Hahaha setting up an asylum island just like Hitler wanted to do by sending the Jews to Madagascar! That woman was/is insane! a sure fire election winner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomber Harris' Best Mate Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Not a huge fan but she did some good things in power Played the IRA at their own game. Dirty tricks, ambush and state sanctioned summary execution. Sorted the Argies right out Broke the unions that were strangling the country Made it more affordable, more possible and more desirable to buy your own home. Fecked up majorly with the council tax and took things way too far with the miners. Cant think of much else that was either very good or very bad. agreed with most of that surprised you didn't add in she mucked up football violence as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpyjambo Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Thatcher racist? Who would have thought it!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Not a huge fan but she did some good things in power Played the IRA at their own game. Dirty tricks, ambush and state sanctioned summary execution. Sorted the Argies right out Broke the unions that were strangling the country Made it more affordable, more possible and more desirable to buy your own home. Fecked up majorly with the council tax and took things way too far with the miners. Cant think of much else that was either very good or very bad. Aye, encouraging people to invest in private housing, education, health care, etc, when they were never in a realistic position to be able to afford it, mainly because she was busy putting people out of work, resulting in record numbers of reposessions - aye, that were a great idea, right enough! She famously said that there was no such thing as society, but merely a collection of individuals - this wasn't so much the case before Thatcher, but it sure is now - forcing people into direct competition with each other destroyed any sense of community. Let's not be kidded that Thatcher's economic 'reforms' were for the benefit of individuals - they were solely for the benefit of the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dode41 Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Not a huge fan but she did some good things in power Played the IRA at their own game. Dirty tricks, ambush and state sanctioned summary execution. Sorted the Argies right out Broke the unions that were strangling the country Made it more affordable, more possible and more desirable to buy your own home. Fecked up majorly with the council tax and took things way too far with the miners. Cant think of much else that was either very good or very bad. bit of a contradiction there is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 One person sums up my feelings towards the woman on the comments below the article "God could we do with you now Maggie" A true leader of the developed world - A world leader! I will support her as long as I draw breathe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Aye, encouraging people to invest in private housing, education, health care, etc, when they were never in a realistic position to be able to afford it, mainly because she was busy putting people out of work, resulting in record numbers of reposessions - aye, that were a great idea, right enough! She famously said that there was no such thing as society, but merely a collection of individuals - this wasn't so much the case before Thatcher, but it sure is now - forcing people into direct competition with each other destroyed any sense of community. Let's not be kidded that Thatcher's economic 'reforms' were for the benefit of individuals - they were solely for the benefit of the state. Utter nonsense Redundancies are part of life!!! Jobs were lost as they were surplus to requirements - do you undertsand Economics? Many many many more jobs were created as she drove Britain into a modern era She helped revolutionalise the modern world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomber Harris' Best Mate Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 One person sums up my feelings towards the woman on the comments below the article "God could we do with you now Maggie" A true leader of the developed world - A world leader! I will support her as long as I draw breathe it would be a much better country we live in that's for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Utter nonsense Redundancies are part of life!!! Jobs were lost as they were surplus to requirements - do you undertsand Economics? Many many many more jobs were created as she drove Britain into a modern era She helped revolutionalise the modern world I do understand economics, thanks - Thatcher's economic theory was based on Hayeck's 'Road to Serfdom' - her neo-liberalism was an attempt to "roll back the state" - note, though, how she completely abandoned this, and spent wildly when it looked like she was going to lose an election. You are, of course, quite correct to say that redundancies are a part of life in a non-Keyensian economy - the kind of economy that Thatcher wanted. The modern world is pish! Are you some sort of middle-manager? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 I do understand economics, thanks - Thatcher's economic theory was based on Hayeck's 'Road to Serfdom' - her neo-liberalism was an attempt to "roll back the state" - note, though, how she completely abandoned this, and spent wildly when it looked like she was going to lose an election. You are, of course, quite correct to say that redundancies are a part of life in a non-Keyensian economy - the kind of economy that Thatcher wanted. The modern world is pish! Are you some sort of middle-manager? I wasn?t trying to condascend you in anyway ? you are probably older, wiser and more intelligent than I However I just can?t stand the whole stigma attached to the name ?Thatcher? It has always been ?in vogue? to hate her. It is very uncool to like her People just hate her to hate her and have no real substance She was a remarkable woman and one fo the worlds greta leaders I was proud to have her as my PM She is synonomous with all of her mistakes but not her successes which is a real shame I gaurantee we would live in afar different world today if she never existed and IMO a far worse world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 I wasn?t trying to condascend you in anyway ? you are probably older, wiser and more intelligent than I However I just can?t stand the whole stigma attached to the name ?Thatcher? It has always been ?in vogue? to hate her. It is very uncool to like her People just hate her to hate her and have no real substance She was a remarkable woman and one fo the worlds greta leaders I was proud to have her as my PM She is synonomous with all of her mistakes but not her successes which is a real shame I gaurantee we would live in afar different world today if she never existed and IMO a far worse world I probably am older, mate, but certainly not wiser or more intelligent. Thatcher was indeed a formidable leader, there's no doubt about it - but I and many others have good reason for resenting her, imo. A guid new year, and keep hating the Hibs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedbump Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Put in the context of where the UK and the rest of the world were in 1979, I think it shows someone far ahead of their time. Indeed, she was the kick up the arse that state sponsored Britain needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Many of the people who mouth off about Thatcher either weren't born when she came to power or were to young to know anything about it. She took over a enfeebled country, with an extremely poor economy, and put the country back on it's feet. Callaghan, Healy and Co. had all but ruined us and it took someone with guts and determination to drive through the sometimes unpopular policies that were needed to put things right. A bit like what going to have to happen next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hickups Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Nevermind what she did to the working class with the shutting down of some of the old industries and the poll tax. She was a supporter of Apartheid, kept guys like Mandela in jail for 30 odd years, which is truely unforgiveable. She was friends with General Pinochet, a right wing fascist who was head of the Military Junta in Chile after the removal of the democratically elected Salvador Allende. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedbump Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Nevermind what she did to the working class with the shutting down of some of the old industries and the poll tax. She was a supporter of Apartheid, kept guys like Mandela in jail for 30 odd years, which is truely unforgiveable. She was friends with General Pinochet, a right wing fascist who was head of the Military Junta in Chile after the removal of the democratically elected Salvador Allende. Top Company there, interesting nights out:santa1: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian_1874 Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Nevermind what she did to the working class with the shutting down of some of the old industries and the poll tax. She was a supporter of Apartheid, kept guys like Mandela in jail for 30 odd years, which is truely unforgiveable. She was friends with General Pinochet, a right wing fascist who was head of the Military Junta in Chile after the removal of the democratically elected Salvador Allende. Yes I wouldn't describe Mrs Thatcher as a defender of democracy quite the opposite in fact. Don't remember a referendum on the undemocratic European Union during her term either. To many wannabe commies on this thread IMO. :santa4: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Nevermind what she did to the working class with the shutting down of some of the old industries and the poll tax. She was a supporter of Apartheid, kept guys like Mandela in jail for 30 odd years, which is truely unforgiveable. She was friends with General Pinochet, a right wing fascist who was head of the Military Junta in Chile after the removal of the democratically elected Salvador Allende. She was a jobby of a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydavid Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Totally love Maggie - wld love her back as PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Totally love Maggie - wld love her back as PM It was bad enough having Churchill when he had dementia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 There is no doubt the the UK was in a terrible state when Thatcher came to power. Things DID need changing. The way she and her governement went about changing things was wrong and the legacy of the social mess they created is very much with us today. The upper and middle classes gained at the expense of the working class and the poor. Rampant capitalism in its most hideous form of dog-eat-dog made the nation rich but ground so many people into the dirt that their communties will probably never recover. Then of course there was the great crash that comes at the end of every mad gold-rush like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Only a Game Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Nevermind what she did to the working class with the shutting down of some of the old industries and the poll tax. She was a supporter of Apartheid, kept guys like Mandela in jail for 30 odd years, which is truely unforgiveable. She was friends with General Pinochet, a right wing fascist who was head of the Military Junta in Chile after the removal of the democratically elected Salvador Allende. She transferred industries from government ownership to private ownership. Industries that were costing the taxpayer an absolute fortune and were a burden on society. Some of those industries no longer exist because they were inefficent, non profitable white elephants from a bygone age. She wasnt a supporter of apartheid. She was against sanctions against South Africa because she didnt think they had worked in the past (she was right) and she didnt think they would work in the future(she was right) The imprisonment of Nelson Mandela and his continued incarceration, arguably unjust though it might have been, was nothing to do with Thatcher's wishes one way or the other. She was on friendly terms with Pinochet who had offered and provided landing and air space facilities and logistical support during the Falklands war, shortening the conflict and thereby saving British lives. She did nothing to put him in power or keep him there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsychocAndy Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 because of a dictionary definition I hate that old bunt with a passion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamdub Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 If I really posted what I think of 'The Witch' I would only get banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hickups Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 She transferred industries from government ownership to private ownership. Industries that were costing the taxpayer an absolute fortune and were a burden on society. Some of those industries no longer exist because they were inefficent, non profitable white elephants from a bygone age. Undeniable, she did drag Britain out of the 19th Century and modernise the nation. Still enforced an unfair poll tax on Scotland which David Cameron apologised for recently in this article, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/sep/16/conservatives.politics She wasnt a supporter of apartheid. She was against sanctions against South Africa because she didnt think they had worked in the past (she was right) and she didnt think they would work in the future(she was right) The imprisonment of Nelson Mandela and his continued incarceration, arguably unjust though it might have been, was nothing to do with Thatcher's wishes one way or the other. She was against Sanctions, Sanctions which every other Commonwealth Nation was for including her head of state. She was only against them because British exports to South Africa brought billions of pounds into the British economy. She could have brought an end to apartheid through Sanctions but choose not to for economic reasons rather than moral ones. She also referred to the ANC (South Africa's ruling party since the mid 90's) as a terrorist organisation and Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. She supported South Africa's white supremacist government when she was in power, infact only recently David Cameron attacked Thatchers foreign policy on South Africa in this article, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527432/Cameron-rebuts-Thatchers-view-of-Mandela.html She was on friendly terms with Pinochet who had offered and provided landing and air space facilities and logistical support during the Falklands war, shortening the conflict and thereby saving British lives. She did nothing to put him in power or keep him there. So friendly with Pinochet that her influence saved him from being extradited to Spain to face a trial for his crimes against humanity. He died without ever standing trial, total injustice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted December 30, 2009 Author Share Posted December 30, 2009 I do understand economics, thanks - Thatcher's economic theory was based on Hayeck's 'Road to Serfdom' - her neo-liberalism was an attempt to "roll back the state" - note, though, how she completely abandoned this, and spent wildly when it looked like she was going to lose an election. You are, of course, quite correct to say that redundancies are a part of life in a non-Keyensian economy - the kind of economy that Thatcher wanted. The modern world is pish! Are you some sort of middle-manager? Er, except it wasn't because the Tories followed monetarism. Hayek was an Austrian economist, the key difference between the two being the difference in allowing banks to create money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deek Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 There is no doubt the the UK was in a terrible state when Thatcher came to power. The upper and middle classes gained at the expense of the working class and the poor. Not sure if you are correct. Here are the income tax rates under Labour then during Mrs Thatchers period of power. Year Basic Higher Basic Limit 1974-75 33% 38-63,73,83% ? 4,500 1975-76 35% 40-75,83% ? 4,500 1976-77 35% 40-75,83% ? 5,000 1977-78 34% 40-75,83% ? 6,000 1978-79 33% 40-75,83% ? 8,000 1979-80 30% 40-60% ? 10,000 1980-81 30% 40-60% ? 11,250 1981-82 30% 40-60% ? 11,250 1982-83 30% 40-60% ? 12,800 1983-84 30% 40-60% ? 14,600 1984-85 30% 40-60% ? 15,400 1985-86 30% 40-60% ? 16,200 1986-87 29% 40-60% ? 17,200 1987-88 27% 40-60% ? 17,900 1988-89 25% 40% ? 19,300 1989-90 25% 40% ? 20,700 What she did do was give most people the opportunity to invest in housing, stocks and shares. Buy "Sid", Busby etc. Unfortunately it ended up with most shares ending up with the multi national investors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stirlo Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Nevermind what she did to the working class with the shutting down of some of the old industries and the poll tax. She was a supporter of Apartheid, kept guys like Mandela in jail for 30 odd years, which is truely unforgiveable. She was friends with General Pinochet, a right wing fascist who was head of the Military Junta in Chile after the removal of the democratically elected Salvador Allende. I'm no fan of Thatcher (far from it!) but you'll find that just about every British government in history (including the current one) has been "friends" with some pretty unpleasant individuals and regimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Er, except it wasn't because the Tories followed monetarism. Hayek was an Austrian economist, the key difference between the two being the difference in allowing banks to create money. Not sure what you mean - what wasn't because the Tories followed monetarism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teepee Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 So friendly with Pinochet that her influence saved him from being extradited to Spain to face a trial for his crimes against humanity. He died without ever standing trial, total injustice. I would agree with you on this, however as my girlfriend is Chilean we have had some heated discussions on this, when Pinochet took control he started to Implement economic reforms that save Chile from becoming bankrupt, he created jobs and economic growth that have ensured that Chile is one of if not the most stable market in south America for over 30 years. Regardless of my own feeling for the man a hell of a lot of Chileans still worship the man and believe that without his intervention the country would be some 3rd world backwater by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted December 31, 2009 Author Share Posted December 31, 2009 Not sure what you mean - what wasn't because the Tories followed monetarism? The Tories didn't follow Austrian economics - as proposed by Hayek, von Mises et al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cabbie754 Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Thatcher's legacy is still with us today. She introduced and encouraged the sale of council houses, admittedly many people benefited in the short term but today there are not enough social houses for our young people to live in. She introduced the hated poll tax which benefited the rich. Yes the rating system had to be replaced but not to base a tax on the ability to pay was immoral and to introduce it in Scotland first was wrong She encouraged people to borrow money and look at the state we are in now. Thatcher's whole ethos was to encourage a society to look after itself instead of looking after each other and we are paying the consequences now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Bring back Tony Blair then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Bring back Tony Blair then. Blair is an arch Thatcherite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 The Tories didn't follow Austrian economics - as proposed by Hayek, von Mises et al. Except I didn't say anything about Austrian economics - I said that Thatcher's economic policies (partly monetarism) were based on the theories espoused by Hayeck in "The Road To Serfdom" - which is undeniaby true. You're no doubt referring to 'the Austrian School'? The fact that Hayeck was Austrian, Adam Smith was Scottish, Maynard-Keynes was English, etc, is irrelevant. er... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Except I didn't say anything about Austrian economics - I said that Thatcher's economic policies (partly monetarism) were based on the theories espoused by Hayeck in "The Road To Serfdom" - which is undeniaby true. You're no doubt referring to 'the Austrian School'? The fact that Hayeck was Austrian, Adam Smith was Scottish, Maynard-Keynes was English, etc, is irrelevant. er... correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stirlo Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Bring back Tony Blair then. I was no fan of Thatcher but any damage that woman did in this country doesn't come close to the damage that Blair has caused to the people of Iraq. Losing your job does not compare with what the people of Iraq have gone through due to the actions of Bush and Blair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Freewheelin' Jambo Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 I was no fan of Thatcher but any damage that woman did in this country doesn't come close to the damage that Blair has caused to the people of Iraq. Losing your job does not compare with what the people of Iraq have gone through due to the actions of Bush and Blair. They were much better off under Saddam. What's one or two gas attacks amongst friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stirlo Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 They were much better off under Saddam. What's one or two gas attacks amongst friends. Saddam's was a deeply unpleasant regime - but not even his biggest critics would suggest that the human suffering under Saddam comes close to what has happened in Iraq since. Tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives since the start of the war, with many thousands more injured. There must be hardly anyone left in Iraq who has not lost someone very close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 They were much better off under Saddam. What's one or two gas attacks amongst friends. WE gave him that gas to use against Iran. He kept some of it for himself. Naughty naughty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibrahim Tall Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Saddam's was a deeply unpleasant regime - but not even his biggest critics would suggest that the human suffering under Saddam comes close to what has happened in Iraq since. Tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives since the start of the war, with many thousands more injured. There must be hardly anyone left in Iraq who has not lost someone very close. The Al Anfal Campaign in 86-89 alone killed 200,000 Kurdish civillians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deek Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 The Al Anfal Campaign in 86-89 alone killed 200,000 Kurdish civillians. So are we justifying the Iraq war because of this? Or was there some other reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibrahim Tall Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 So are we justifying the Iraq war because of this? Or was there some other reason? That wasn't my argument, i just found it ridiculous that someone was trying to insinuate less than "Tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of people" suffered under Saddam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.