Baroness Thatcher has died.

[peter_hutson]

Hence the reason the German Govt continued to subsidise the lignite mines. They reckoned the costs to society would be greater if loads of these miners were put on the dole and better quality black coal imported.

The event you're describing sounds like a well thoughtout decision with the nations interests at heart. We never had that in the UK, becuase both parties were effectively at war with each other.

The Unions believed they could run the country and dictate terms to the Government and if necessary bring it down. By the time of the miners strike we had two institutions (NUM and Conservative Government) that hated one another. Thatchers decision to close some mines was right and based on good economic principles, the NUM still fought as they only had their interests at heart and had no interest in the fact that the rest of economy was having to carry the burden of the associated subsidies. Thatcher on winning, then decided to decimate the mining industry, regardless of long term impact on the economy or society. She did this largely out of revenge and to remove an chance of a further challenge to the state from that part of the economy. I think this was wrong and short sited. But I can understand why she did it and her motivations were heavily driven by the unreasonable previous actions of the NUM leadership. The NUM sowed the seeds for what Thatcher did and are just as much to blame for the terrible decimation of mining communities.

 

[BaZ87]

There was a big report published last year Purdy

All the (surviving) documents are included in there.

 

[elmarko]

And yet they still kept voting for Labour...

Other than the handful of Socialist Worker Party members I am not sure if there is a widespread desire to return to heavy union control and fully nationalised industries.

Heavy union control I agree very little support (but that's in part due to the massive anti-union bias in the media for the last 20 years) - but the nationalisation of our energy & railway sectors? - I'd bet more are in favour that you would think.

Why supposed capitalists think it's fine having corporate entities taking the profits for certain industries but the tax payers covering the systemic risk is beyond me.

 

[Macro]

The event you're describing sounds like a well thoughtout decision with the nations interests at heart. We never had that in the UK, becuase both parties were effectively at war with each other.

The Unions believed they could run the country and dictate terms to the Government and if necessary bring it down. By the time of the miners strike we had two institutions (NUM and Conservative Government) that hated one another. Thatchers decision to close some mines was right and based on good economic principles, the NUM still fought as they only had their interests at heart and had no interest in the fact that the rest of economy was having to carry the burden of the associated subsidies. Thatcher on winning, then decided to decimate the mining industry, regardless of long term impact on the economy or society. She did this largely out of revenge and to remove an chance of a further challenge to the state from that part of the economy. I think this was wrong and short sited. But I can understand why she did it and her motivations were heavily driven by the unreasonable previous actions of the NUM leadership. The NUM sowed the seeds for what Thatcher did and are just as much to blame for the terrible decimation of mining communities.

You're not going to get very far in this thread with your reckless use of a balanced view and actual facts

 

[Purdy]

There was a big report published last year Purdy

All the (surviving) documents are included in there.

I never read it all.

So all the surviving documents are there, what documents do the Hillsborough families hope can be released revealing her level of involvement in this? I'd imagine all the damaging ones are destroyed anyways but you say all the surviving ones are there surely that one include the ones the families are wanting to be made available?

 

[do_ron_ron]

The rich always got richer - that's pretty much a golden rule throughout history. However under Mrs Thatcher the poor started getting poorer for the first time in a century, a trend that continues to this day.

The Economic historian Prof Niall Ferguson said the greatest transfer of money(in the modern age) from the have nots to the haves occurred under Thatcher.

I just think that on day 1 of Mrs Thatcher's rule, she said "Where there is discord, may we bring harmony". From that day on I saw more and more discord introduced to this country.

Her 'Sermon on the Mound' also went down a treat with the Scots.

 

[peter_hutson]

Labour have opposed everything the coalition have put in place. You just see how much of it gets reversed if/when they win the next election.....

They'll put the higher rate tax band up to 50% and get less revenue from it, and thats about it.

They oppose everything because they are in opposition. Our political setup does not reward opposition parties that tell the electorate that Goverment policy is quite sensible. I agree they'll bump up the higher band of income tax, but this really is tinkling into the wind. In terms of core economic principles, they're all the same. All each party does is tinker with the fringes to appeal to their electoral base, while making no real fundamental changes.

 

[peter_hutson]

You're not going to get very far in this thread with your reckless use of a balanced view and actual facts

Don't worry, I think I've said two sinsible things today. Thats my quota for the year all used up.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

Heavy union control I agree very little support (but that's in part due to the massive anti-union bias in the media for the last 20 years) - but the nationalisation of our energy & railway sectors? - I'd bet more are in favour that you would think.

Why supposed capitalists think it's fine having corporate entities taking the profits for certain industries but the tax payers covering the systemic risk is beyond me.

I don't know if they would to be fair. The current mood towards the state seems to be one of derision based on multiple examples of incompetence.

There is no trust and a very high level of cynicism. Also, the history (memory for many) of the previous nationalisation program and the subsequent failings and costs to the tax payer would put many off (IMO anyway).

A poll would certainly be interesting, but then I guess you run the risk of a skewed result from people voting for change just because they don't like the current system, when in truth the change they are voting for would probably be no better, and possibly even worse.

 

[BaZ87]

I never read it all.

So all the surviving documents are there, what documents do the Hillsborough families hope can be released revealing her level of involvement in this? I'd imagine all the damaging ones are destroyed anyways but you say all the surviving ones are there surely that one include the ones the families are wanting to be made available?

I should have said, all the surviving ones are supposed to be there. We don't know for certain whether there are any more documents that should have handed over. There certainly should be more documents but whether they've been held back or simply destroyed, we don't know. I'm not certain of the powers of the IPCC but they have demanded all documents to be handed to them.

 

[elmarko]

I don't know if they would to be fair. The current mood towards the state seems to be one of derision based on multiple examples of incompetence.

There is no trust and a very high level of cynicism. Also, the history (memory for many) of the previous nationalisation program and the subsequent failings and costs to the tax payer would put many off (IMO anyway).

A poll would certainly be interesting, but then I guess you run the risk of a skewed result from people voting for change just because they don't like the current system, when in truth the change they are voting for would probably be no better, and possibly even worse.

I may be bias because I've worked in a nationalised industry (after privatisation) - but I'm well aware of the potential benefits of returning it back into public ownership.

But many of my friends who are life-long conservatives are quite open to the prospect of returning our rail networks to public ownership (which to be honest I found surprising) & many feel the same way about the energy industry.

A poll would indeed be interesting on the subject, a more balanced forum would be preferable (a forum of older/slightly higher socio-economic class geek males isn't going to representative of the wider population ).

 

[Amp34]

People seem to be ignoring the fact that Labour did sod all to "fix" the issues while they were in power as well. They didn't restore milk for kids for example yet people still bang on about "milk snatcher".

Also, there are some pretty shocking posts about Thatcher on facebook from people I thought were a bit more balanced and sensible. Quite embarassing, frankly.

I don't get this whole stolen milk thing, I remember having my daily milk* at school in the early 90s. I assumed it was reinstated shortly after but apparently not.

*the warm, watery, nasty tasting stuff stored in the boiler room anyway...

 

[theleg]

I don't get this whole stolen milk thing, I remember having my daily milk* at school in the early 90s. I assumed it was reinstated shortly after but apparently not.

*the warm, watery, nasty tasting stuff stored in the boiler room anyway...

I believe that the labour government took away milk from secondary school kids, but nobody mentions that..Then while thatcher was education head, milk for kids between 7 and 11 was taken away.

I remember getting milk at primary school in the late 80s along with my classmates.

 

[peter_hutson]

I believe that the labour government took away milk from secondary school kids, but nobody mentions that..Then while thatcher was education head, milk for kids between 7 and 11 was taken away.

I remember getting milk at primary school in the late 80s along with my classmates.

Me too. It's sad to think that children today can no longer aspire to the illustrious position of "milk monitor". Poor little souls

 

[Amp34]

Heavy union control I agree very little support (but that's in part due to the massive anti-union bias in the media for the last 20 years) - but the nationalisation of our energy & railway sectors? - I'd bet more are in favour that you would think.

Why supposed capitalists think it's fine having corporate entities taking the profits for certain industries but the tax payers covering the systemic risk is beyond me.

Aside from the fact the railways were only a national company for less than 50 years (most of their lives they have been private) if a nationalised rail network was anythging like the tube then I'm all against it...

Unions holding the rest of the city to ransom for way above inflation pay increases every year and every time they don't agree with something their employers ask they strike for "safety reasons".

And anyway many complain the underground is overpriced... Nationalisation doesn't appear to mean cheap...

Nope, I'm happy with reasonably reliable (usually stolen cables causing issues) rail service at generally reasonable prices*

*There was a study last month in the paper showing our railprices were actually on par with most of the more prosperous companies.

 

[Iraklis F.C.]

her funeral at the expense of the british tax payer is clearly a tory show, paid by all for the benefits of a party. Heck, it is against her own will, they dont even respect her wishe.

 

[Amp34]

I believe that the labour government took away milk from secondary school kids, but nobody mentions that..Then while thatcher was education head, milk for kids between 7 and 11 was taken away.

I remember getting milk at primary school in the late 80s along with my classmates.

Ah ok

Me too. It's sad to think that children today can no longer aspire to the illustrious position of "milk monitor". Poor little souls

That has little to do with Thatcher though? Considering it must have been taken away in the 70 and then reintroduced in the late 80's/early 90's and then taken away again, unless my school was an oddity providing milk to 7-11 year olds around 93-97.

 

[Sliver]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Act_1944#School_milk

School milk

The Act provided free meals and milk - a third of a pint a day - in schools to all children under the age of 18. In 1968 Harold Wilson’s Labour Government withdrew free milk from secondary schools. In 1971 Margaret Thatcher (then secretary of state for education) withdrew free school milk from children over seven.

 

[Narj]

Hrm, I remember having milk at primary school but can't remember if parents were asked to pay for it or not.

 

[Cosimo]

Johnny Rotten calls for respect:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-says-hate-mobs-loathsome--calls-respect.html