Two Men Charged Over Manchester Airport...
News4 mins ago
maggie
96 Answers
just watching a britain...a modern history on bbc2 its mainly about maggie thatcher she actually caused anarchy on the streets of britain,do you think she was a heroine for britain or a horror?my opinion is that she was the latter..............................
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by stokemaveric. 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.
Even when you look at the economic model for getting rid of the mines, it's flawed, coal from abroad was subsidised to a far greater level (and still is) it's rival nuclear was heavily subsidised (and still is), it resulted in "the dash for gas" because gas was cheaper back then.
The net result is that the gas has run out (they were warned) and we now rely on the likes of Russia for fuel (God forbid they have a war with Ukraine), we still import coal for power from the other side of the world (carbon footprint?) ask yourself with gas the price it is now would it make viable economic sense to close the mines?
The words used to describe these policies at the time were "short termism".
Remember "Tony's cronies"? Look up it's predecessor "Tory fat cats" that'll give you an idea of the public's appetite for privatisation at the time, or as Macmillan said "selling off the family silver".
The net result is that the gas has run out (they were warned) and we now rely on the likes of Russia for fuel (God forbid they have a war with Ukraine), we still import coal for power from the other side of the world (carbon footprint?) ask yourself with gas the price it is now would it make viable economic sense to close the mines?
The words used to describe these policies at the time were "short termism".
Remember "Tony's cronies"? Look up it's predecessor "Tory fat cats" that'll give you an idea of the public's appetite for privatisation at the time, or as Macmillan said "selling off the family silver".
When the economy's growing, everyone benefits. Stop. Hear me out.
The old myth of the 'rich get richer, the poor get poorer' is actually nonsense. What generally happens is the rich get richer very quickly, while the poor get richer much slower and less noticeably. Not systemic, it's just mathematics: growth of 2% in �1m will be far more noticeable than 2% growth in �5k. Just about everybody has a saving of some kind if for no other reason than just to have a safe place to keep money.
Plus growth ---> employment. Again, I cite the UK's low unemployment compared to France, Germany or Spain.
Of course, you can criticise that model but that's another debate.
The coal subsidies being phased out is a much more sensible solution economically
AH-HA! So you admit they were right to remove coal.
You've changed your argument: It's gone from (roughly) 'they shouldn't have closed down the coal industry' to 'they should have done it more gradually'.
Besides, if I remember right most of Germany's reforms have taken place under the CDU. So in about 3 years. That's not really that much slower or gradual than Thatcher (compare what Thatcher had done with the coal industry after three years). Thatcher was just a bit crazier.
I don't get the bit about the blocking of utilities
I was talking about the unions constantly striking and blocking millions of homes from using their utilities in the 70s.
Europe faced the [same] issues without fracturing the fabric of the nation
When you say 'fracturing the fabric of the nation', you seem to mean 'removing the industrial base'. So, for my response to this, I'm going to respond to your main argument on coal as well, and I guess pretty much most of your second post. I'll do this later with a big super-answer when I've got
The old myth of the 'rich get richer, the poor get poorer' is actually nonsense. What generally happens is the rich get richer very quickly, while the poor get richer much slower and less noticeably. Not systemic, it's just mathematics: growth of 2% in �1m will be far more noticeable than 2% growth in �5k. Just about everybody has a saving of some kind if for no other reason than just to have a safe place to keep money.
Plus growth ---> employment. Again, I cite the UK's low unemployment compared to France, Germany or Spain.
Of course, you can criticise that model but that's another debate.
The coal subsidies being phased out is a much more sensible solution economically
AH-HA! So you admit they were right to remove coal.
You've changed your argument: It's gone from (roughly) 'they shouldn't have closed down the coal industry' to 'they should have done it more gradually'.
Besides, if I remember right most of Germany's reforms have taken place under the CDU. So in about 3 years. That's not really that much slower or gradual than Thatcher (compare what Thatcher had done with the coal industry after three years). Thatcher was just a bit crazier.
I don't get the bit about the blocking of utilities
I was talking about the unions constantly striking and blocking millions of homes from using their utilities in the 70s.
Europe faced the [same] issues without fracturing the fabric of the nation
When you say 'fracturing the fabric of the nation', you seem to mean 'removing the industrial base'. So, for my response to this, I'm going to respond to your main argument on coal as well, and I guess pretty much most of your second post. I'll do this later with a big super-answer when I've got
No not quite on coal, IF you're going to close down the mines doing it gradually makes sense not as dramatic as Thatcher did. We still need coal, we just import from the other side of the world.
A diverse energy supply is the correct way Thatcher ploughed headlong into gas, a bad idea.
The fracturing of the nation's fabric has nothing to do with manufacturing more to do with the sense of belonging to a country or region, the feeling that you have a government that values you and wants you to succeed.
A diverse energy supply is the correct way Thatcher ploughed headlong into gas, a bad idea.
The fracturing of the nation's fabric has nothing to do with manufacturing more to do with the sense of belonging to a country or region, the feeling that you have a government that values you and wants you to succeed.
Yeh, which basically had its core in mining and the communities the industries created. Thanks for clearing that up, anyway, I was kind of confused as to what exactly you meant.
Before my next super-post on industrial policy/coal//the rest of Europe/ (which basically covers a lot of the points you were making ealier), I was going to work in the following stats, but I think the passage in isolation makes very interesting reading (and I confess I didn't know this myself). It's from The Economy under Mrs. Thatcher by Christopher Johnson :
(On subsidies)
"In real terms, government expenditure on trade, industry and energy (mainly coal) doubled in real terms [...] from �5.5 billion in 1978-79 to �11 billion in 1982-3before falling again by 40% to �6.6 billion in 1989-90, one fifth higher than at the outset." (p.183)
Cont.
Before my next super-post on industrial policy/coal//the rest of Europe/ (which basically covers a lot of the points you were making ealier), I was going to work in the following stats, but I think the passage in isolation makes very interesting reading (and I confess I didn't know this myself). It's from The Economy under Mrs. Thatcher by Christopher Johnson :
(On subsidies)
"In real terms, government expenditure on trade, industry and energy (mainly coal) doubled in real terms [...] from �5.5 billion in 1978-79 to �11 billion in 1982-3before falling again by 40% to �6.6 billion in 1989-90, one fifth higher than at the outset." (p.183)
Cont.
If we look at subsidies compared to foreign countries, then British industry was actually subsidized at roughly the same level: UK subsidies were roughly 2.3% of GDP in 1979 (down from 2.7% in 1975), and were roughly the same (2.5%) at the OECD average (they increased through the '80s to about 2.7% but in the UK declined to 1.7% - though this was still an increase in real terms). So foreign coal was subisides slightly greater than UK coal, but not nearly to the extent that you said it was.
The reason I posted the passage above was that increased subsidies did nothing to alleviate the loss-making areas of the coal industry: by the time Thatcher came to power, the coal industry was beyond saving. The reasons for this is that British coal is naturally more expensive and the various problems that our over-powered unions caused.
Your response to this has (quite reasonably) been to compare what happened in Europe, where industry did survive (to detrimental effect to the economy). This is a flawed comparison. Firstly, while Europe as a whole had a similar level of union problems, the UK still ranked as easily among the worst (check international comparisons of the time if you don't believe me).
The UK was also hit worse economically than else where - UK inflation was nearly 20% in in 1978-79, where the OECD avg. was 14%. The UK was borrowing simply to sustain the nationalized industries: in 1975 the borrowing requirement for keeping up spending on industry grew to �12bn.
I'm not going to pretend to know why intervention worked in Europe (in the short term - it caused plenty of problems in the long run and the trend is now being reversed), but it culpably kept failing repeatedly in the UK. Closing the mines was just bowing to the inevitable and made good economic sense. The rest is history: if coal had collapsed, where else could the govt. turn but to gas?
The reason I posted the passage above was that increased subsidies did nothing to alleviate the loss-making areas of the coal industry: by the time Thatcher came to power, the coal industry was beyond saving. The reasons for this is that British coal is naturally more expensive and the various problems that our over-powered unions caused.
Your response to this has (quite reasonably) been to compare what happened in Europe, where industry did survive (to detrimental effect to the economy). This is a flawed comparison. Firstly, while Europe as a whole had a similar level of union problems, the UK still ranked as easily among the worst (check international comparisons of the time if you don't believe me).
The UK was also hit worse economically than else where - UK inflation was nearly 20% in in 1978-79, where the OECD avg. was 14%. The UK was borrowing simply to sustain the nationalized industries: in 1975 the borrowing requirement for keeping up spending on industry grew to �12bn.
I'm not going to pretend to know why intervention worked in Europe (in the short term - it caused plenty of problems in the long run and the trend is now being reversed), but it culpably kept failing repeatedly in the UK. Closing the mines was just bowing to the inevitable and made good economic sense. The rest is history: if coal had collapsed, where else could the govt. turn but to gas?
"What generally happens is the rich get richer very quickly, while the poor get richer much slower and less noticeably."
Hi Kromovaracun. Just wondering... to what extent do you accept that a yawning gulf between rich and poor weakens social cohesion?
Don't most experts regard this as one of the key contributors to crime, and other social ills? Or do you fall into the Thatcherite 'everyone's a winner' camp?
Hi Kromovaracun. Just wondering... to what extent do you accept that a yawning gulf between rich and poor weakens social cohesion?
Don't most experts regard this as one of the key contributors to crime, and other social ills? Or do you fall into the Thatcherite 'everyone's a winner' camp?
Wow, I didn't think anyone else was reading this thread...
Quin: I don't want to start a whole other debate with this, or derail the current one. But I'll try and answer in brief. For the record, I'm aware of the problems with a wealth gap, I just think it's better than the problems enforcing a small wealth gap has.
The gap in itself doesn't cause problems. Person A having more than Person B holds no logical problems in itself. What causes problems is the fact that when you have a gap, the rich tend to get slightly better opportunities. Which is disgraceful, but there are more effective ways of getting around it than trying to eliminate a wealth gap. It's far too simple to say 'the gap leads to crime'.
It is indisputable however that just about everyone benefits to some degree from economic growth. Unfortunately, the rich benefit moreso and more visibly (as I say, this is just mathematics - not a systemic thing).
Quin: I don't want to start a whole other debate with this, or derail the current one. But I'll try and answer in brief. For the record, I'm aware of the problems with a wealth gap, I just think it's better than the problems enforcing a small wealth gap has.
The gap in itself doesn't cause problems. Person A having more than Person B holds no logical problems in itself. What causes problems is the fact that when you have a gap, the rich tend to get slightly better opportunities. Which is disgraceful, but there are more effective ways of getting around it than trying to eliminate a wealth gap. It's far too simple to say 'the gap leads to crime'.
It is indisputable however that just about everyone benefits to some degree from economic growth. Unfortunately, the rich benefit moreso and more visibly (as I say, this is just mathematics - not a systemic thing).
I think the difference between you and I is that you study politics, whereas I live with it.
Politics is in part about the management and presentation of statistics. I could, for example, demonstate that Everton are the greatest team in England because no-one has scored more goals in the top flight of English football (sorry Stokie) the notion that Thatcher espoused was that was no other way.
Clearly there was another way because everyone else managed.
Even when you look at the economics of it all, Germany had a stronger, richer economy than Britain before Thatcher, they had a stronger, richer economy during Thatcher and they still had a stronger richer economy after Thatcher. In fact they still have now!
So where has all that growth from this economic miracle? Thatcher's British economic lion rampant...
Politics is in part about the management and presentation of statistics. I could, for example, demonstate that Everton are the greatest team in England because no-one has scored more goals in the top flight of English football (sorry Stokie) the notion that Thatcher espoused was that was no other way.
Clearly there was another way because everyone else managed.
Even when you look at the economics of it all, Germany had a stronger, richer economy than Britain before Thatcher, they had a stronger, richer economy during Thatcher and they still had a stronger richer economy after Thatcher. In fact they still have now!
So where has all that growth from this economic miracle? Thatcher's British economic lion rampant...
I look at the facts and try to strike a balance between what people tell me and what they tell me.
Politics is in part about the management and presentation of statistics.
I've not manipulated those statistics. Neither has Johnson - his book is renowned for its impartiality (the other stats I got were from a case study of the 1970s a bunch of other people did.)
[Germany] still had a stronger richer economy after Thatcher. In fact they still have now!
Erm, no they don't (and neither, incidentally do France, Italy, or Spain). Sorry, everton, but you are simply wrong.
From the CIA world factbook:
GDP Per capita in Germany in 2007 was just over $34,000. In the UK it was over $35,000.That doesn't look too dramatic, but then consider Germany has a population over 22m larger than us. Which ought to put them well ahead.
[Just to prove I'm not cherrypicking statistics:]
The % of population below the poverty the line is 3% greater in the UK (but this will actually mean less people in terms of numbers due to said population difference).
Public debt in 2007 was 43% of GDP in the UK. That's pretty bad, but in Germany is was 62%.
Germany also has higher unemployment than the UK. And has done for a very long time. In 2005 they had the highest since the Weimar.
Germany under the CDU has also started liberalising its economy and - as I showed earlier - doing things such as closing down coal pits.
Germany does have a reasonably healthy economy, but to argue they have a 'richer' economy is simply ludicrous. I add that we've also seen far more impressive growth rates over the past decade (and still have more growth, even with the world economy slowing as it is).
And that's just Germany - which is a relatively healthy comparison. Try comparing the UK's economy
Politics is in part about the management and presentation of statistics.
I've not manipulated those statistics. Neither has Johnson - his book is renowned for its impartiality (the other stats I got were from a case study of the 1970s a bunch of other people did.)
[Germany] still had a stronger richer economy after Thatcher. In fact they still have now!
Erm, no they don't (and neither, incidentally do France, Italy, or Spain). Sorry, everton, but you are simply wrong.
From the CIA world factbook:
GDP Per capita in Germany in 2007 was just over $34,000. In the UK it was over $35,000.That doesn't look too dramatic, but then consider Germany has a population over 22m larger than us. Which ought to put them well ahead.
[Just to prove I'm not cherrypicking statistics:]
The % of population below the poverty the line is 3% greater in the UK (but this will actually mean less people in terms of numbers due to said population difference).
Public debt in 2007 was 43% of GDP in the UK. That's pretty bad, but in Germany is was 62%.
Germany also has higher unemployment than the UK. And has done for a very long time. In 2005 they had the highest since the Weimar.
Germany under the CDU has also started liberalising its economy and - as I showed earlier - doing things such as closing down coal pits.
Germany does have a reasonably healthy economy, but to argue they have a 'richer' economy is simply ludicrous. I add that we've also seen far more impressive growth rates over the past decade (and still have more growth, even with the world economy slowing as it is).
And that's just Germany - which is a relatively healthy comparison. Try comparing the UK's economy
Clearly there was another way because everyone else managed.
And were worse off. France still has a severe union problem (and is getting sick of it - witness the public support of Sarkozy's stand against the rail unions last year). And note my economic comparisons. They're also starting to follow suit - note the election of Sarkozy in France and Merkel in Germany.
I've demonstrated earlier in the thread why Europe's progress since the 70s isn't a valid comparison - while they faced largely the same problems, the UK faced them far worse. I've provided evidence to support this. Thatcher was the only person on the scene who was willing to break the mould (as it were).
And were worse off. France still has a severe union problem (and is getting sick of it - witness the public support of Sarkozy's stand against the rail unions last year). And note my economic comparisons. They're also starting to follow suit - note the election of Sarkozy in France and Merkel in Germany.
I've demonstrated earlier in the thread why Europe's progress since the 70s isn't a valid comparison - while they faced largely the same problems, the UK faced them far worse. I've provided evidence to support this. Thatcher was the only person on the scene who was willing to break the mould (as it were).
Top 5 global economies in 2007, 1 U.S.A, 2 Japan, 3 Germany, 4 China, 5 U.K. Wikipedia (via google "top 5 global econimies").
We were never going to agree on Thatcher given the difference in our age and experience, perhaps if along with our European partners the reforms (I use that word loosely) were implemented I'd view her differently our industries could've competed equally but the unilateral nature of Thatcher proved her downfall.
I along with others laughed when she got ousted by her own party, she thought she had "a job for life" how wrong she was, she never thought she'd face being made redundant. Boy did it show.
It's the hypocrisy of the Tories I despise (ex cabinet ministers included) when fox hunting got banned, they cried out about how they were wrecking this industry, was I alone in wishing, hoping that one Labour M.P would have the guts to stand up and say "as the old indrusties die out, new ones will rise up to take their place" no such luck.
We were never going to agree on Thatcher given the difference in our age and experience, perhaps if along with our European partners the reforms (I use that word loosely) were implemented I'd view her differently our industries could've competed equally but the unilateral nature of Thatcher proved her downfall.
I along with others laughed when she got ousted by her own party, she thought she had "a job for life" how wrong she was, she never thought she'd face being made redundant. Boy did it show.
It's the hypocrisy of the Tories I despise (ex cabinet ministers included) when fox hunting got banned, they cried out about how they were wrecking this industry, was I alone in wishing, hoping that one Labour M.P would have the guts to stand up and say "as the old indrusties die out, new ones will rise up to take their place" no such luck.
Foxhunting isn't an industry...
The Wiki list just lists countries by GDP. Germany has a higher GDP than us because they have 22 million more people than we do. To see that and make the assumption that they have a 'stronger, richer economy' is incredibly simplistic.
Despite that population gap we beat them in all the areas listed above (employment, GDP per capita, de facto poverty) and also have greater investment.
our industries could've competed equally
I kind of showed pretty clearly earlier that they were beyond saving over here. True, Europe faced the same problems, but the fact is the UK got it in the neck far, far worse. If you want to blame anyone for their decline, blame Labour. Or perhaps Heath.
I really hate to say this, everton, but for the rest of your post you just seem to be... well... point-scoring, to be frank.
We were never going to agree on Thatcher given the difference in our age and experience
That's exactly why I've stuck with this: I like my views being challenged.
no such luck.
I guess one of the lowest unemployment rates and one of the best and most stable economies in Western Europe just manifested out of thin air, then...
The Wiki list just lists countries by GDP. Germany has a higher GDP than us because they have 22 million more people than we do. To see that and make the assumption that they have a 'stronger, richer economy' is incredibly simplistic.
Despite that population gap we beat them in all the areas listed above (employment, GDP per capita, de facto poverty) and also have greater investment.
our industries could've competed equally
I kind of showed pretty clearly earlier that they were beyond saving over here. True, Europe faced the same problems, but the fact is the UK got it in the neck far, far worse. If you want to blame anyone for their decline, blame Labour. Or perhaps Heath.
I really hate to say this, everton, but for the rest of your post you just seem to be... well... point-scoring, to be frank.
We were never going to agree on Thatcher given the difference in our age and experience
That's exactly why I've stuck with this: I like my views being challenged.
no such luck.
I guess one of the lowest unemployment rates and one of the best and most stable economies in Western Europe just manifested out of thin air, then...
I'm happy to debate anything, but reading about Thatcher is entirely different to living through Thatcher. I've read alot about the Great War, but I could'nt for a minute comprehend life in the trenches, I am aware of it.
There's a wealth of difference to living through something and seeing it, or reading it when you quote statistics on closures or job losses that was real peoples lives going downhill. You can't imagine what it's like to see factory after factory closing and being knocked down.
The reality is this is a political question and politics deals entirely in shades of grey, if you think you can produce a Damascene conversion based on what you've read then you're misguided. I would'nt like you to think I was patronising you (far from it) I was there, I saw at first hand, close up what she did to this country.
You've demonstrated to your own satisfaction and I've demonstrated to mine the Thatcher years, both are valid. That's politics.
All I can say to you further to this is that if you are planning a carreer in politics, never forget the people you reresent, you're job is to try and give the people what they want not tell them what to do. You should spend time with working people (casual workers especially) to understand the problems borne from Thatcher's legacy.
There's a wealth of difference to living through something and seeing it, or reading it when you quote statistics on closures or job losses that was real peoples lives going downhill. You can't imagine what it's like to see factory after factory closing and being knocked down.
The reality is this is a political question and politics deals entirely in shades of grey, if you think you can produce a Damascene conversion based on what you've read then you're misguided. I would'nt like you to think I was patronising you (far from it) I was there, I saw at first hand, close up what she did to this country.
You've demonstrated to your own satisfaction and I've demonstrated to mine the Thatcher years, both are valid. That's politics.
All I can say to you further to this is that if you are planning a carreer in politics, never forget the people you reresent, you're job is to try and give the people what they want not tell them what to do. You should spend time with working people (casual workers especially) to understand the problems borne from Thatcher's legacy.
But a lot of this debate (well, moreso the latter part of it) hasn't been about experience. It's been about the Thatcher govt's legacy. To discern that, it's simply more helpful to look at more objective evidence than testimonies which are naturally slanted one way or another.
Everton, what you're asking me to do is essentially just take your word for it when I have considerable evidence in front of me indicating a positive legacy. Empirical evidence has its value, but it isn't the be-all and end-all. Bear in mind you're not the only person I've spoken to on the Thatcher years (and not the only person I've spoken to who had an unpleasant experience, I might add), and I do my best to consider all of these when making a judgement.
But it simply makes no sense to just ignore the plentiful evidence aside from that testimony when making that overall judgement. Particularly when they downright disprove arguments based solely on experience.
I've said before that of course I understand it was real people, and I'm well aware of the human suffering that took place in the 80s. Just as I am well aware of the human suffering that took place pre-Thatcher, as well. What my evidence tells me - and what I've shown quite clearly - is that in places it was almost unavoidable, and in the long term benefited the country.
Everton, what you're asking me to do is essentially just take your word for it when I have considerable evidence in front of me indicating a positive legacy. Empirical evidence has its value, but it isn't the be-all and end-all. Bear in mind you're not the only person I've spoken to on the Thatcher years (and not the only person I've spoken to who had an unpleasant experience, I might add), and I do my best to consider all of these when making a judgement.
But it simply makes no sense to just ignore the plentiful evidence aside from that testimony when making that overall judgement. Particularly when they downright disprove arguments based solely on experience.
I've said before that of course I understand it was real people, and I'm well aware of the human suffering that took place in the 80s. Just as I am well aware of the human suffering that took place pre-Thatcher, as well. What my evidence tells me - and what I've shown quite clearly - is that in places it was almost unavoidable, and in the long term benefited the country.
