I'm Really Worried I Have Upset My...
Family & Relationships0 min ago
I Wonder How Many Realise What Margaret Thatcher Did For Us?
75 Answers
http://
This article makes interesting reading and destroys the false myths invented by the left.
This article makes interesting reading and destroys the false myths invented by the left.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Oh, and you know the thing about immigrants leaping to the top of the social housing queue?
[i]In a report the Equality and Human Rights Commission states that less than two per cent of all social housing residents are people who have moved to Britain in the last five years, and that only about one in six foreign-born people live in social housing – a similar proportion to UK-born people.
The research, which was undertaken for the Commission by the Institute for Public Policy Research, also reveals that many more recent migrants have bought their own homes (17 per cent) than live in social housing (11 per cent).
Most new migrants to the UK over the last five years, particularly from the newer European Union member states such as Poland, have been ineligible to claim entitlement to social housing as they do not meet the national criteria.
Only new migrants who are a European Economic Area worker, have been given ‘settled’ or ‘refugee’ status by the Home Office, or have leave to remain in the UK, are eligible for social housing.
Social housing policies are targeting those in most need including the homeless, the elderly and families with children, the EHRC said.[i]
From: http://
[i]In a report the Equality and Human Rights Commission states that less than two per cent of all social housing residents are people who have moved to Britain in the last five years, and that only about one in six foreign-born people live in social housing – a similar proportion to UK-born people.
The research, which was undertaken for the Commission by the Institute for Public Policy Research, also reveals that many more recent migrants have bought their own homes (17 per cent) than live in social housing (11 per cent).
Most new migrants to the UK over the last five years, particularly from the newer European Union member states such as Poland, have been ineligible to claim entitlement to social housing as they do not meet the national criteria.
Only new migrants who are a European Economic Area worker, have been given ‘settled’ or ‘refugee’ status by the Home Office, or have leave to remain in the UK, are eligible for social housing.
Social housing policies are targeting those in most need including the homeless, the elderly and families with children, the EHRC said.[i]
From: http://
sp1814
according to wiki
/Proceeds of the sales were paid to the local authorities, but they were restricted to spending the money to reduce their debt until it was cleared, rather than being able to spend it on building more homes. The effect was to reduce the council housing stock, especially in areas where property prices were high such as London and the south-east of England./
so it went into the LA sink hole and indirectly allowed Central Govt to reduce its support
Arguably Maggie didn't want new Council Houses because while the sold properties provided grateful Tory voters, Council estates provided a population indebted to predominantly Labour authorities.
Of course people like Dame Shirley Porter took that strategy to a whole new level of gerrymandering
according to wiki
/Proceeds of the sales were paid to the local authorities, but they were restricted to spending the money to reduce their debt until it was cleared, rather than being able to spend it on building more homes. The effect was to reduce the council housing stock, especially in areas where property prices were high such as London and the south-east of England./
so it went into the LA sink hole and indirectly allowed Central Govt to reduce its support
Arguably Maggie didn't want new Council Houses because while the sold properties provided grateful Tory voters, Council estates provided a population indebted to predominantly Labour authorities.
Of course people like Dame Shirley Porter took that strategy to a whole new level of gerrymandering
Gromit
/// Sell off the Council Housing stock so that the next generation of poor people can make private landlords wealthy. She was a genius. ///
And did future Labour Governments do anything to alter the situation in their 13 years in power?
They could have quite easily halted the sale of Council Houses, as well has putting a cap on the amount of rent that private landlords were allowed to charge.
/// Sell off the Council Housing stock so that the next generation of poor people can make private landlords wealthy. She was a genius. ///
And did future Labour Governments do anything to alter the situation in their 13 years in power?
They could have quite easily halted the sale of Council Houses, as well has putting a cap on the amount of rent that private landlords were allowed to charge.
Surprisingly, and I used that word advisedly, the piece seems balanced and is, indeed, in the Daily Mail. At least the writer doesn't agree with some part of her policies.
She perceived that there was an aspirational element in Britain, and it wasn't with the upper middles, though it may have been among some of them, it was in classes held as lower than that. The sale of council houses and the privitisation of nationalised industries, played to that element. Before she could do that, in her first general election, she achieved an 11 per cent swing from skilled workers and a 9 per cent swing from the unskilled. She knew, as Labour apparently didn't, more about how people felt than Labour did, and she maintained that in subsequent elections.
She perceived that there was an aspirational element in Britain, and it wasn't with the upper middles, though it may have been among some of them, it was in classes held as lower than that. The sale of council houses and the privitisation of nationalised industries, played to that element. Before she could do that, in her first general election, she achieved an 11 per cent swing from skilled workers and a 9 per cent swing from the unskilled. She knew, as Labour apparently didn't, more about how people felt than Labour did, and she maintained that in subsequent elections.
Brenden, i believe that and have said so and got a lot of raspberries for my troubles. No one should make her out a saint, but nor a sinner, the fact is this country was held to ransom by the unions, leaders like Arthur Scargill, those on the left of left, old trotskyites who in real life would have been unemployable. But the unions needed people like that to rabble rouse, never mind how unpopular many of their measures were. I too remember the deplorable three day week, and rubbish piling up in the streets, the endless strikes, not least the railway workers, who inconvenienced millions, never mind attacking the government, let's cause havoc for joe Public. Sad to see some of the left like Ken Livingstone banging on about how good things really were in the 70's, was he asleep all that time.
BlueToffee
/// Without reading the article AOG, you are quoting from the tory mouthpiece, the Daily Mail ///
Then perhaps you would be wise to read an article before commenting on it's source, would it have attracted your attention more if the mouthpiece had been Labour's Guardian?
But since you didn't bother to read the article you have failed to notice that it was actually written by Dominic Sandbrook a freelance writer and newspaper columnist.
/// Without reading the article AOG, you are quoting from the tory mouthpiece, the Daily Mail ///
Then perhaps you would be wise to read an article before commenting on it's source, would it have attracted your attention more if the mouthpiece had been Labour's Guardian?
But since you didn't bother to read the article you have failed to notice that it was actually written by Dominic Sandbrook a freelance writer and newspaper columnist.
The only thing I have to say now about what Margaret Thatcher did for us is this:
http://
http://
em10
I agree about Mr Sandbrook. I've read every one of his books, and until he started writing for the Mail, I had no idea what his politics were. I admired the dispassionate way he can tell a story. I think knowing his politics will result in me reading his future books differently. It's the same with Andrew Marr. Because I know he leans to the left, I read his books with that consideration in mind.
And I would rather not.
I agree about Mr Sandbrook. I've read every one of his books, and until he started writing for the Mail, I had no idea what his politics were. I admired the dispassionate way he can tell a story. I think knowing his politics will result in me reading his future books differently. It's the same with Andrew Marr. Because I know he leans to the left, I read his books with that consideration in mind.
And I would rather not.
one thing i did say before, that if Labour had wanted to they could have done something about the things they said she got wrong, like Right to Buy, it's still going on by the way. Labour are very good at spending money, but they don't seem overly good on finding ways to keep some in hand for a rainy day. Live now pay later seems to be their modus operandi, not much use in this day and age i would have thought.
Council house sell off ? Taking homes owned by the ratepayer and being forced to sell them at cut prices to those who had been renting at probably less than the private market rate for years. Got rid of property we owned and then refused to let our councils invest in more for those who actually needed affordable homes to rent. All to bribe the beneficiaries into voting Tory. Liberated my foot. A windfall at the ratepayers expense for some, a rude awakening to the costs of maintenance for others.
Baroness Thatcher's £8 million funeral. So the more you cause hardship to the masses the more the country will use taxpayers money for your sendoff ? Talk about putting salt into an open wound.
So it is claimed to be nonsense that she sought confrontation with the miners. Surely anyone alive in the UK at the time could see that was the case and no amount of denial changes that. And of course some pits would need to close, but that has no bearing on the closure where none were warranted. But this piece was suppose to be what she did for us, not to us, or did that get rapidly abandoned ?
Conjuring up emotional visions of men toiling half-naked in desperately dark and dangerous conditions does no one any credit. Does the writer think there has been no progress in technology over the last 3 decades ?
Of course she dealt a blow to manufacturing by insisting we should move into service industries (that can easily be moved elsewhere in the world) as they were supposed to be the future and just as good as traditional manufacturing. Nonsense of course. It took ages to build manufacturing up again, and even now it seems most industry owned be foreign concerns. It's no use poking fun about our industry from that time, calling it a joke. Such a claim is shameful. All economies have their ups and downs and a little support for one's own industry should be expected.
And for sure all economies rise up from the low points, even when those in charge seem determined to create as much pain as possible.
Despite the claims earlier we now read an admission that industry actually did fall dramatically from 29 to 22 percent, many were screaming this out to her at the time, but she wasn't for seeing sense and turning onto a sensible course of action. But at this point in the article it is apparently ok to admit that the UK was not the only economy with issues. Talk about spin.
And unemployment. Apparently "Labour Wasn't Working" when the unemployment numbers reached a million, but apparently it was to be expected and accepted when they increased, with the government and their friends in the press trying to blame it on the last administration ! Well it's now 2.52 million despite changes in how the number is calculated to reduce the number, and schemes to remove folk from the unemployed count: so it seems no one has managed to repair all the damage since.
The stark reality is that globalisation thrived due to changes in international laws that allowed free and easy movement of finance and labour and so now elected governments have a hard job keeping those companies under control; to the detriment of the population.
No, despite the way the piece has been written, praise upon praise, it is clear that most is either confession or denial, presumably in the hope of beatification of the Sainted Maggie.
Baroness Thatcher's £8 million funeral. So the more you cause hardship to the masses the more the country will use taxpayers money for your sendoff ? Talk about putting salt into an open wound.
So it is claimed to be nonsense that she sought confrontation with the miners. Surely anyone alive in the UK at the time could see that was the case and no amount of denial changes that. And of course some pits would need to close, but that has no bearing on the closure where none were warranted. But this piece was suppose to be what she did for us, not to us, or did that get rapidly abandoned ?
Conjuring up emotional visions of men toiling half-naked in desperately dark and dangerous conditions does no one any credit. Does the writer think there has been no progress in technology over the last 3 decades ?
Of course she dealt a blow to manufacturing by insisting we should move into service industries (that can easily be moved elsewhere in the world) as they were supposed to be the future and just as good as traditional manufacturing. Nonsense of course. It took ages to build manufacturing up again, and even now it seems most industry owned be foreign concerns. It's no use poking fun about our industry from that time, calling it a joke. Such a claim is shameful. All economies have their ups and downs and a little support for one's own industry should be expected.
And for sure all economies rise up from the low points, even when those in charge seem determined to create as much pain as possible.
Despite the claims earlier we now read an admission that industry actually did fall dramatically from 29 to 22 percent, many were screaming this out to her at the time, but she wasn't for seeing sense and turning onto a sensible course of action. But at this point in the article it is apparently ok to admit that the UK was not the only economy with issues. Talk about spin.
And unemployment. Apparently "Labour Wasn't Working" when the unemployment numbers reached a million, but apparently it was to be expected and accepted when they increased, with the government and their friends in the press trying to blame it on the last administration ! Well it's now 2.52 million despite changes in how the number is calculated to reduce the number, and schemes to remove folk from the unemployed count: so it seems no one has managed to repair all the damage since.
The stark reality is that globalisation thrived due to changes in international laws that allowed free and easy movement of finance and labour and so now elected governments have a hard job keeping those companies under control; to the detriment of the population.
No, despite the way the piece has been written, praise upon praise, it is clear that most is either confession or denial, presumably in the hope of beatification of the Sainted Maggie.
From what i read of this funeral it wasn't what she wanted at all, so maybe some of her wishes have been ignored.
as to council home sell off, if Labour had wanted to stop it, surely they would have, and it was going on before she brought in right to buy. Our Labour run council sent out booklets recently about it, if they didn't want to continue on with policy why are they.
as to council home sell off, if Labour had wanted to stop it, surely they would have, and it was going on before she brought in right to buy. Our Labour run council sent out booklets recently about it, if they didn't want to continue on with policy why are they.
I can see positives and negatives from her periods in office and her legacy, but she did win 3 elections I recall so must have been doing something right which struck a chord with many. I admired her in some ways and she did change my views on some issues, although I didn't always agree with her policies and felt her approach was rather divisive at times.
Anyway, I really only came on the thread to in response to Zeuhl to clarify that the 3 day week was under Heath, I recall, and was a few years before Callaghan's winter of discontent.
Anyway, I really only came on the thread to in response to Zeuhl to clarify that the 3 day week was under Heath, I recall, and was a few years before Callaghan's winter of discontent.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Did Covid Change Your Lifestyle?
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Leap In Unemployment Rate Raises...
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.