Baroness Thatcher has died.

[estebanrey]

Hitchens on Unions (1:27 onward)

 

[Robbo]

You don't need to be a war criminal to ruin peoples lives, millions of lives, also no, celebrating a war criminals death is not crass, if anything it is pointless since they haven't been made to suffer for every single person they caused to suffer.

This is where your mistake lies though, she didn't want people to suffer, it was just a side effect of taking the country forward.

It's nothing like a war criminal or anything so negative at all. We're in a reasonably good position now, on from the modern foundation she helped create.

(I do agree on major changes needed to be done with unions and miners but also the decimation of thousands of communities was completely retarded and the measure of peoples importance being how wealthy they were was retarded, reading what Ferguson saw in the hospital of his mothers deathbed was pretty grim.)

This a tragic side effect of such changes, yes she was aggressive about it, but it may not have worked otherwise.

I just think the people calling her evil are blaming her for too much (they have to shoulder some responsibility as well), it's way over the top.

 

[Biohazard]

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.

I agree. 'Short sighted' but then Thatcher isn't the only premier in Westminster over the last century who could be accused of that. In any event, it was going to become inevitable with her City oriented monetarism policy conjoined with increasing oil revenues was only ever going to strengthen the pound to make exported output a dead duck anyway; which needn't have been the case had some re-investment taken place but alas we all know what happened there.

 

[elmarko]

Hitchens on Unions (1:27 onward)

 

[BaZ87]

Plenty of people are acting as if it was (not just on here I might add).

Show me one person saying (or acting as if) it was all her fault, on here or otherwise.

I have never seen one person ever blame her for the disaster or claim that the cover up was all her fault. Plenty though believed that she was involved in the cover up in some capacity and we now know that at the very least she was aware of the lies from the police but done nothing about it. Even after she retired, she responded to a letter from somebody regarding Hillsborough and still put forward the lies from the police as the cause of the disaster.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Post number 1269 not adequately answered.

Something just occurred to me, you say in your post "something needed doing with the greedy miners" now did you mean just the Stoke miners?, because then you go on to say "she was the person to do it". Now as I recollect, she then took on not just the Stoke miners, which you must know too y?. In summary, I'm sure any fair minded person would agree that it would seem VERY strange that you would hope that she would deal with just the Stoke miners, hugely improbable I'm sure you agree.So we can infer that when you say "she was the person to do it" you did indeed mean all miners.

When I said GREEDY MINERS I meant all the miners around the world who mine gold, silver, tin, brussell sprouts and coal.
Every single one of them and I know them all personally.

 

[Purdy]

Well actually you don't know if she wanted certain people to suffer, she certainly didn't give a single **** though.

It could've and should've been done differently, the 'unfortunate side effect' is a weak cop out for me but we can agree to disagree.

 

[Castiel]

I think I was respectful, fair point about posts being unsolicited per se.

I disagree, but agree to differ.

Barely anything you have claimed is satisfactorily provable imho, we can all find spurious facts and figures etc, it was impossible at the time to have meaningful facts about the viability of the mines etc.

The figures that refer to the subsidies and so on are a matter of public record. The figures on support are also a matter of public record. There are plenty of sources that corroborate the situation of British Mining in the 1980s (and before) and the vast amounts of public money being spent to keep it afloat, these measure (some bought in by Thatcher) included investing £50m in industries so they could subsidise buying expensive British Coal over cheaper Oil, banning the import of cheaper foreign coal, forcing generating companies to buy British coal subsidised by the taxpayer, early retirement payments to Miners were increased to £36,000, British Coal was costing £44 per metric tonne to mine, when it was costing £32 to buy from foreign markets. British Coal was losing £1.2m a day, a grant of £876m was given to the NCB. It cost the taxpayer £30m alone just to finance the stockpiling of foreign coal in Rotterdam just to stop it coming here (it was bought by various companies including the Central Electricity Generating Board.

http://www.thecommentator.com/artic...e_the_spite_of_sheffield_s_sons_and_daughters

Margaret Thatcher’s government inherited a coal industry which had seen productivity collapse by 6 percent in five years. Nevertheless, it made attempts to rescue it. In 1981 a subsidy of £50 million was given to industries which switched from cheap oil to expensive British coal. So decrepit had the industry become that taxpayers were paying people to buy British coal.

The Thatcher government injected a further £200 million into the industry. Companies who had gone abroad to buy coal, such as the Central Electricity Generating Board, were banned from bringing it in and 3 million tonnes of coal piled up at Rotterdam at a cost to the British taxpayer of £30 million per year.

By now the industry was losing £1.2 million per day. Its interest payments amounted to £467 million for the year and the National Coal Board needed a grant of £875 million from the taxpayer.

The Monopolies and Mergers Commission found that 75 percent of British pits were losing money. The reason was obvious. By 1984 it cost £44 to mine a metric ton of British coal. America, Australia, and South Africa were selling it on the world market for £32 a metric ton.

Productivity increases had come in at 20 percent below the level set in the 1974 Plan for Coal.

Taxpayers were subsidising the mining industry to the tune of £1.3 billion annually. This figure doesn’t include the vast cost to taxpayer-funded industries such as steel and electricity which were obliged to buy British coal.

I did not mention the viabiltiy of individual mines.

The BIG claim of the huge wages has been shown to be almost impossible to prove, IMHO the reason is this wage you claim pretty much never happened at all.

You cannot find any substantive records online of wages for miners in the 1980s because their earnings were decided locally and were dependent on local conditions and pit profitability. The point raised by Dimple about the comparative wages of miners is not necessarily unreasonable, you have not offered any substantive evidence (you made a self confessed guess) yourself, and I admitted that it was anecdotal and you could ignore if you wished (I have said this several times now so I do not know why you are belabouring a point I already conceded I could not corroborate).

This doesn't change the public perception of the time however, which is what I was referring to and what Dimple was illustrating...again this is verifiable:

When asked in a Gallup poll in July 1984 whether their sympathies lay mainly with the employers or the miners, 40% said employers; 33% were for the miners; 19% were for neither and 8% did not know. When asked the same question during 5–10 December 1984, 51% had most sympathy for the employers; 26% for the miners; 18% for neither and 5% did not know. When asked in July 1984 whether they approved or disapproved of the methods used by the miners, 15% approved; 79% disapproved and 6% did not know. When asked the same question during 5–10 December 1984, 7% approved; 88% disapproved and 5% did not know. In July 1984, when asked whether they thought the miners were using responsible or irresponsible methods, 12% said responsible; 78% said irresponsible and 10% did not know. When asked the same question in August 1984, 9% said responsible; 84% said irresponsible and 7% did not know.

UK miners' strike (1984–85) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

British Political Opinion 1937-2000: The Gallup Polls. Compiled by Robert J. Wybrow. Politico's Publishing.

I am afraid that most of what I have said is corroborated to one degree or another, I already explained the only part to which I cannot corroborate outside of anecdote...

Of course you know, fgs man a poster suggests headbutting and punching, by sidestepping this most obvious of moral tests you have let down your contrived measured posting style imho.

There you are making this personal again, you are implying that I am immoral and am acting dishonestly in my posting style, I don't feel that is respectful....

I still do not know what someone said to you directly about whatever posts or actions you have made has anything to do with me or the discussion we are having. As for being contrived, this line of accusation seems contrived itself in order to shift the focus away from the discussion on the Miners and again to make this about personalities...I have already stated I am not interested in such a futile argument, therefore I have not tripped into any posters accusations, I have only responded to Robbo and to you (within this area of the discussion), you incidently solicited my replies by your quoting me.

If you have an issue with the poster, whoever it was that you claim threatened you then I suggest you take it up with the moderation team, it is their bailiwick, not mine..whatever your opinion is on whose responsibility it may be.

Btw I didn't say you said miners were overpaid, however it is my opinion you implied it.

Then you are making an assumption that was neither intended or implied. (I would have thought that was clear when I stated categorically that I was not a supporter of a race to the bottom regarding salaries or opposed to the right of workers to fight for the best deal they can get, as many people who frequent the Tube threads and so on will attest.)

 

[Robbo]

Well actually you don't know if she wanted certain people to suffer,

I think it's a fair assumption that she didn't...

she certainly didn't give a single **** though.

What makes you think that? Unfortunately you can't just ask nicely, then things don't get done.

It could've and should've been done differently, the 'unfortunate side effect' is a weak cop out for me but we can agree to disagree.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but sure.

Show me one person saying (or acting as if) it was all her fault, on here or otherwise.

I have never seen one person ever blame her for the disaster or claim that the cover up was all her fault. Plenty though believed that she was involved in the cover up in some capacity and we now know that at the very least she was aware of the lies from the police but done nothing about it. Even after she retired, she responded to a letter from somebody regarding Hillsborough and still put forward the lies from the police as the cause of the disaster.

You obviously can't blame her for the disaster itself, but I have seen people try and blame her for being an integral part of the cover up, which there is no evidence of - it was the police. All the Liverpool fans who are 'glad she's dead' are blaming her pretty heavily in my opinion.

 

[BaZ87]

You obviously can't blame her for the disaster itself, but I have seen people try and blame her for being an integral part of the cover up, which there is no evidence of - it was the police. All the Liverpool fans who are 'glad she's dead' are blaming her pretty heavily in my opinion.

So you haven't seen anybody saying or acting as if it was all her fault. I'm glad that's clear.

You've been quick to mock or criticise people that you believe have crossed the line with their comments but what you came out with was equally moronic and disrespectful to the families of those that died at Hillsborough, who have fought and campaigned for the truth and justice to be brought.

 

[act smiley]

I didn't (not for long anyway). I also don't think she was faultless at all, but unless she's some kind of war criminal, I don't see why people would celebrate her death. Even then, it's a bit crass to do so.

It's just like the miners, they were happy and didn't want any change - well, the world changes and she called their bluff and took them down, and for the better, ultimately.



Yes, but they're blaming her for all of their problems when in reality she didn't cause all that. The miners ended up with a raw deal but they - coupled with their unions - put themselves in that position. They wanted more money/their demands and were happy to hold the country to ransom for it.

I'd agree that it's crass to have street parties etc. But the decision to give her this funeral is inappropriate and people shouldn't be afraid to say so, and people should feel free to criticise her actions - someone's death is an appropriate time for an honest appraisal of that if it's kept civil (which obviously street parties aren't). It's crazy that there are some expecting a universal love-in over her achievements.

Taking on the unions was necessary, but not taking a complete scorched earth approach to it that ruined swathes of the country. Also, the pay deal in '82 that led to Thatcher stocking up on coal and planning closures was a below inflation one.

 

[Robbo]

So you haven't seen anybody saying or acting as if it was all her fault. I'm glad that's clear.

Yes, I have. I've seen people implying she helped cover it up when there's no evidence of such a thing. That obviously doesn't make it all her fault, but it was clearly a somewhat flippant comment; laced with a more serious point.

The fact #JFT96 was trending shortly after she died says it all.

You've been quick to mock or criticise people that you believe have crossed the line with their comments but what you came out with was equally moronic and disrespectful to the families of those that died at Hillsborough, who have fought and campaigned for the truth and justice to be brought.

Given your attitude when it comes to Hillsborough related things I'm not surprised you think this. I don't see what was bad about it though, that's how some people are acting from what I can see. I don't see why that's disrespectful, I'm just pointing out what I see and the impression I get from it. You've very much jumped a few guns there.

 

[Purdy]

You were already disrespectful to them when you made an assumption just about Suarez7 because he supports Liverpool and the twas all her fault of course or whatever it is you said, you 'very much jumped a few guns there' on him.

 

[Robbo]

You were already disrespectful to them when you made an assumption just about Suarez7 because he supports Liverpool and the twas all her fault of course or whatever it is you said, you 'very much jumped a few guns there' on him.

Ah yes, everyone who mentions it in anything other than a massively 'friendly' way is being disrespectful, I forgot that part. I don't think I was being disrespectful - why would I be? I wouldn't.

You can disagree if you like, I won't be surprised.

 

[BaZ87]

Yes, I have. I've seen people implying she helped cover it up when there's no evidence of such a thing.

Then as I asked, show me one person saying or acting as if it was all her fault.

And there's no evidence that she had helped with the cover up? That depends on exactly what you mean by helping. We know that she was told about the police lies, we know she done nothing about it and we know that she put forward these lies as the truth even after she retired.

Maybe you shouldn't comment on things you don't understand Robbo.

Given your attitude when it comes to Hillsborough related things I'm not surprised you think this. I don't see what was bad about it though, that's how some people are acting from what I can see. I don't see why that's disrespectful, I'm just pointing out what I see and the impression I get from it. You've very much jumped a few guns there.

I jumped a few guns? Maybe you should read back through your exchange with Suarez7 that I commented on. You're the one that brought up Hillsborough, sarcastically stated that he believe it was all Thatcher's fault and that was the sole reason for his hate towards her. Why? Because he claimed that another poster should be allowed to say exactly what he thinks about Thatcher (not that I agree with him)? No, it was because his username indicated that he is a Liverpool supporter. Jumped a few guns there, haven't you?

Your Hillsborough comment was a cheap dig and you know it.

 

[Hagar]

Then as I asked, show me one person saying or acting as if it was all her fault.

And there's no evidence that she had helped with the cover up? That depends on exactly what you mean by helping. We know that she was told about the police lies, we know she done nothing about it and we know that she put forward these lies as the truth even after she retired.

Maybe you shouldn't comment on things you don't understand Robbo.

I think that the official 'judicially approved' version until last year was the police fabrication. You should not expect any politician to go on record against a verdict until it is proven otherwise. No other PM did either.

 

[Robbo]

Then as I asked, show me one person saying or acting as if it was all her fault.

And there's no evidence that she had helped with the cover up? That depends on exactly what you mean by helping. We know that she was told about the police lies, we know she done nothing about it and we know that she put forward these lies as the truth even after she retired.

Maybe you shouldn't comment on things you don't understand Robbo.

I know she was involved in some capacity, but she wasn't entirely behind the cover up, as I've seen implied. That's all.

I jumped a few guns? Maybe you should read back through your exchange with Suarez7 that I commented on. You're the one that brought up Hillsborough, sarcastically stated that he believe it was all Thatcher's fault and that was the sole reason for his hate towards her. Why? Because he claimed that another poster should be allowed to say exactly what he thinks about Thatcher (not that I agree with him)? No, it was because his username indicated that he is a Liverpool supporter. Jumped a few guns there, haven't you?

Your Hillsborough comment was a cheap dig and you know it.

I did assume that would be the reason for his dislike, yes. He can say it isn't but it could well be - it seems to be a common theme. Either way, we'll never know.

It's not a cheap dig (a flippant comment, yes), and even if it was it was aimed at the person not the families (they always get dragged in). It isn't being disrespectful - you've made that link.

 

[Purdy]

lol

 

[BaZ87]

I think that the official 'judicially approved' version until last year was the police fabrication. You should not expect any politician to go on record against a verdict until it is proven otherwise. No other PM did either.

No it wasn't. The police put forward the whole "tanked up, ticketless mob" arguement as the cause of the disaster. This was proven to be bs in the Taylor Report which was published in January 1990. Despite it being proven not to be true and despite the fact that she was actually informed of the deceitfulness of the Police in relation to Hillsborough, Thatcher stuck to the "tanked up, ticketless mob" line.

I know she was involved in some capacity, but she wasn't entirely behind the cover up, as I've seen implied. That's all.

You're confusing me now. You know she was involved? You just said that there was no evidence that she helped in the cover up

I've asked a couple of times now, can you show me one person claiming that it was all her doing, which you claim to have seen.

I did assume that would be the reason for his dislike, yes. He can say it isn't but it could well be - it seems to be a common theme. Either way, we'll never know.

It's not a cheap dig (a flippant comment, yes), and even if it was it was aimed at the person not the families (they always get dragged in). It isn't being disrespectful - you've made that link.

Maybe had there been no other reason to dislike Thatcher, I could accept that but there's plenty of non-Liverpool supporters that despise her. Suarez7 didn't even show his dislike for Thatcher in your exchange, he simply argued someone elses right to give their opinion on her. It was very presumptuous of you Robbo and hypocritical of you then to say I'm jumping the gun.

You made a flippant (if that's what you want to call it) comment that mocked and undermined those that have spent nearly 24 years fighting for the truth about Hillsborough.

 

[Robbo]

You're confusing me now. You know she was involved? You just said that there was no evidence that she helped in the cover up

I've asked a couple of times now, can you show me one person claiming that it was all her doing, which you claim to have seen.

It's the general impression I was getting, as I explained.

You made a flippant (if that's what you want to call it) comment that mocked and undermined those that have spent nearly 24 years fighting for the truth about Hillsborough.

I still don't see how it mocked or undermined them, if you think it did then I apologise.