What did maggie do?

vanpeebles · 11 Oct 2005 at 11:20

new labour arnt a socialist party though, they are slowly turning education and health to business run things.

Mr Jack · 11 Oct 2005 at 11:23

Maggie created the economic circumstances that led us to be the four biggest economy in the world and allowed the last eight years of solid economic stability to occur. She also created one of the biggest economic crashes of recent years and, through right-to-buy, heavily contributed to our very high house prices. She was bold and decisive in the Falklands war, and proved Britain was a military power to be reckoned with once again. He relationship with Reagan and Gorbechov (sp?) helped end the Cold War (although her role was hardly pivotal). She introduced some good privitisation (BA) and some stupid and badly organised ones (Gas, electric, water and rail - the bizarre forcing of market economics into natural networks doesn't work). Through right-to-buy she enacted the biggest give away to Britain's poorest ever seen but through her other policies she made the rich richer and pushed up societies inequalities. She saved us from militant trade unionism. And then there was the Poll Tax. She helped out economy make the move away from over-staffed and inefficent manufacturing.

Over all, she did what needed to be done to place Britain into a strong economic position and re-established our place as a prominent player on the world stage and for this she deserves much credit but she was also chaotic in her actions flailing wildly between unconnected policies, she undermined much of Britain's community structure and thereby laid the groundwork on which our current problems with Chavs and yob culture were built. Her policies on public transport were ill thought out and detremental in the long run. She mistreated and abused both Scotland (particularly) and Wales.

Britain is, probably, stronger for her leadership but her legacy has left us with many scars and bruises that need to be addressed.

VIRII · 11 Oct 2005 at 11:23

dirtydog said:
Incidentally VIRII, did you like it when John Major was running the country and Norman Lamont ran the economy?

It was not great by any means but fortunately I did not suffer.
However what do you think the next 5 years has in store for our economy. Are you ready for the big high street crash, unemployment, higher taxes and rising interest rates I wonder.

dirtydog · 11 Oct 2005 at 11:24

VIRII said:
Personally I feel Labour are by far more hypocritical, nothing worse than a grasping socialist who denies you one thing whilst lining his own pockets.
At least with Tories there is no suprise when they turn out to be in it for themselves.

lol I can't argue with that

New Labour only pretend to be socialists of course. Even people like Diane Abbott, a supposed dyed-in-the-wool unreconstructed old school left winger, preached about state schools but sent her kids to private school... a hypocrite of the highest order, sadly.

dirtydog · 11 Oct 2005 at 11:25

VIRII said:
It was not great by any means but fortunately I did not suffer.
However what do you think the next 5 years has in store for our economy. Are you ready for the big high street crash, unemployment, higher taxes and rising interest rates I wonder.

Yep sometimes I'm glad I'm not a homeowner

If I was, I'd be nervous.

edit - good post by Mr Jack btw.

VIRII · 11 Oct 2005 at 11:26

Mr Jack said:
She introduced some good privitisation (BA) and some stupid and badly organised ones (Gas, electric, water and rail - the bizarre forcing of market economics into natural networks doesn't work).

Not all of those were dine under her Govt or even under Tory Govts.

Why do people insist on saying "she undermined the fabric of our communities and is responsible for the rise of **** behaviour".
That is rubbish.

**** behaviour is a result of liberal policies in Education, Policing , crime and Punishment. People who do not fear any realistic punishment certainly feel no deterrent.

Much of the **** scum are in London. What did she do that undermined London communties ? Nothing.

Visage · 11 Oct 2005 at 11:27

VIRII said:
Well unless you can tell me what local tax she is supposed to have interfered with ? Certainly was not Poll tax or Council tax.

Well, for a start, the Thatcher government allowed councils to run their pension funds down to 75% in order to subsidise local taxes and make the Poll tax look like a good deal

Was that reasonable?

VIRII · 11 Oct 2005 at 11:27

dirtydog said:
lol I can't argue with that New Labour only pretend to be socialists of course. Even people like Diane Abbott, a supposed dyed-in-the-wool unreconstructed old school left winger, preached about state schools but sent her kids to private school... a hypocrite of the highest order, sadly.

Under Benn we had Polaris whilst Foot was wearing his CND badge.
Socialist = hypocrit liar, always will.

VIRII · 11 Oct 2005 at 11:28

Visage said:
Well, for a start, the Thatcher government allowed councils to run their pension funds down to 75% in order to subsidise local taxes and make the Poll tax look like a good deal

Was that reasonable?

should local councils elected by local people not be allowed to manage their own money ? Would that be reasonable ?

dirtydog · 11 Oct 2005 at 11:29

VIRII said:
Under Benn we had Polaris whilst Foot was wearing his CND badge.
Socialist = hypocrit liar, always will.

So because some socialists are hypocrites and liars, they all are?

By that logic, because some conservatives (small 'c' is deliberate) are hypocrites and liars they must all be too, right?

vanpeebles · 11 Oct 2005 at 11:30

VIRII said:
It was not great by any means but fortunately I did not suffer.
However what do you think the next 5 years has in store for our economy. Are you ready for the big high street crash, unemployment, higher taxes and rising interest rates I wonder.

but that goes back to the start. all the mass industry that we lost. it seems like the only jobs we have now are shops, or working for local goverment. durham is a good example for the lets build more shops to create money and jobs.

first early to mid 80s, we had milburngate shopping center which kind of went along side the current shops at the time.

next we then had an out of town shopping center a few miles away the arnison center. this drew customers from durham city, and effected all town shops a bit.

then the bottom end of durham got a whole new shopping street layout, this moved shops and customers from the original milburngate and the top end of durham, north road which was a busy shopping street. so they became empty.

now theres another big out of town shopping set up near me, even closer than the arnisons, shops are now struggling there. plus the other lot a struggling too.

so many shops, but only the same ammount of people and money to go round

VIRII · 11 Oct 2005 at 11:31

dirtydog said:
Yep sometimes I'm glad I'm not a homeowner If I was, I'd be nervous.

edit - good post by Mr Jack btw.

I'm not concerned myself because I have not borrowed against incresed house value, will have tied up a long term low interest mortgage before it hits and work in a safe line of work.
I expect my prudence to pay off, if not then I'll simply pay my mortgage off early and buy a second home as a very long term investment and give it to my Daughter when she is old enough.

Visage · 11 Oct 2005 at 11:32

VIRII said:
should local councils elected by local people not be allowed to manage their own money ? Would that be reasonable ?

Not really, no.

Councils are run by politicians.

Would you trust ANY politician, of ANY political party, when given the choice between:

a) High local tax (leading to being booted out of office) and ensuring workers get a pension in 25 years time

or

b) Low local tax, continued power and leaving the pension problem to someone else further down the line.

For someone with such a low opinion of politicians, I'm surprised you go for option a.

VIRII · 11 Oct 2005 at 11:32

vanpeebles said:
but that goes back to the start. all the mass industry that we lost. it seems like the only jobs we have now are shops, or working for local goverment. durham is a good example for the lets build more shops to create money and jobs.

first early to mid 80s, we had milburngate shopping center which kind of went along side the current shops at the time.

next we then had an out of town shopping center a few miles away the arnison center. this drew customers from durham city, and effected all town shops a bit.

then the bottom end of durham got a whole new shopping street layout, this moved shops and customers from the original milburngate and the top end of durham, north road which was a busy shopping street. so they became empty.

now theres another big out of town shopping set up near me, even closer than the arnisons, shops are now struggling there. plus the other lot a struggling too.

so many shops, but only the same ammount of people and money to go round

So you prefer to keep people in work by losing billions making ships that no-one is buying .......
You can not spend what you do not have, nor can companies run at a loss forever, state owned or not, it is still money and has to come from somewhere.

VIRII · 11 Oct 2005 at 11:34

Visage said:
Not really, no.

Councils are run by politicians.

Would you trust ANY politician, of ANY political party, when given the choice between:

a) High local tax (leading to being booted out of office) and ensuring workers get a pension in 25 years time

or

b) Low local tax, continued power and leaving the pension problem to someone else further down the line.

For someone with such a low opinion of politicians, I'm surprised you go for option a.

Pensions are increasingly a poor future investment, a lot of people are going to be very disappointed by their pensions when the time comes to claim.
Politicians are all about leaving someone else to take the flak - look at the decision to delay rebanding council houses.

I do not trust any politicians bit prefer to see them coming with a knife in their hand than fall for lies and get stabbed in the back.

vanpeebles · 11 Oct 2005 at 11:35

VIRII said:
You can not spend what you do not have

are you sure? a majority of the uk seem to be doing that

dirtydog · 11 Oct 2005 at 11:37

VIRII said:
I do not trust any politicians bit prefer to see them coming with a knife in their hand than fall for lies and get stabbed in the back.

Don't we all, but it isn't just Labour who do this. Remember before 1992 when Major repeatedly gave the impression he wouldn't raise NI or VAT.. 'I have no plans to do so' - then in the budget straight after, they did just that - a trick which Labour have adopted since. Instead of increasing Income Tax, increase NI (most people don't notice or think of it as an income tax) or other indirect taxes like VAT.

VIRII · 11 Oct 2005 at 11:41

vanpeebles said:
are you sure? a majority of the uk seem to be doing that

Yup and they are going to be crucified because of it.
Now that they have somehow simultaneously realised that they can't keep borrowing against a perceived value in their house and that they are not really rich just because house prices went up people are stopping spending.

Consider recent highstreet stores that have annouced redundancies or gone into receivership recently. Look at how many places seem to have permanent "sales" on. Consider how cheap things such as clothes, TVs, Sofas, etc have become in comparative terms recently.
The big crash is coming.

VIRII · 11 Oct 2005 at 11:42

dirtydog said:
Don't we all, but it isn't just Labour who do this. Remember before 1992 when Major repeatedly gave the impression he wouldn't raise NI or VAT.. 'I have no plans to do so' - then in the budget straight after, they did just that - a trick which Labour have adopted since. Instead of increasing Income Tax, increase NI (most people don't notice or think of it as an income tax) or other indirect taxes like VAT.

Labour took a very good economy and have blown it.
People don't seem to realise this yet.
Give it 5 years and I think everyone will be cursing the day Brown took the chancellors office.

dirtydog · 11 Oct 2005 at 11:45

VIRII said:
Labour took a very good economy and have blown it.
People don't seem to realise this yet.
Give it 5 years and I think everyone will be cursing the day Brown took the chancellors office.

That doesn't really address what I just said

ie. sleight of hand and not being honest about taxation is not the sole preserve of the Labour party - the Tories did it too.

If you judge the success of an economy on unemployment rates, inflation, interest rates and growth then Brown has done a far better job than the Tories ever did, incidentally.

Tell me honestly, truthfully - would you be as critical of his performance if this was a Tory government and he was a Tory chancellor. I don't think you would.

* note: I don't like Brown and nor do I think he has done a good job, but on the indicators that most people like to use, ie. the ones I mentioned, he has done a good job.