Thatcher dies.

Cleat Eastwood

CiB wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Us young people can read you know ;-).

Shame you can't write, or use the correct title. Thatcher Dies. Neat, concise, and factual. .

fixed that for you -

rolf_f

The Beginner wrote:

I can never get the left's hatred of Thatcher, they believe in Democracy andshe was voted in by a majority of people and did EXACTLY what she said she was going to do, which would be rare now (and certainly was (we now know) rare under Tony Blair - history will tell over the latest crew), so they should celebrate her premiership as a victory for democracy even if they disagree with what she did.

I don't think a belief in democracy means you have to like whoever it is who gets elected! And her election wasn't really a victory for democracy - just an example of it.

BelgianBeerGeek

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Perhaps we see the difference between Leamington Spa and Teesside.

I grew up in Teesside, during the Thatcher era. I saw exactly what her policies did for the area and its people, I went to school with bright people who honestly believed that their whole education was a complete waste, because there was nothing at all in the area by way of work for the young: there was precious little for anyone.

I left. I had to. There was nothing.

Whilst people will laud her for "crushing the unions", they don't realise that in shutting down the major industries without replacing it with anything, she crippled certain regions for decades.

Yes. Leamington Spa is a dump.

jonny_trousers

I do hope her funeral will be privately funded. It's what she'd have wanted, after all.

The Rookie

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Perhaps we see the difference between Leamington Spa and Teesside.

I grew up in Teesside, during the Thatcher era. I saw exactly what her policies did for the area and its people, I went to school with bright people who honestly believed that their whole education was a complete waste, because there was nothing at all in the area by way of work for the young: there was precious little for anyone.

I left. I had to. There was nothing.

Whilst people will laud her for "crushing the unions", they don't realise that in shutting down the major industries without replacing it with anything, she crippled certain regions for decades.

Yes. Leamington Spa is a dump.

So mature of you.....

stu-bim

She won't be missed in Ireland

rick_chasey

Doesn't receive a state funeral. Receives a funeral "with honours" which is a rung below apparently.Although cost is split between gov't and the Thatcher private estate.

Only difference in my understanding in practical terms is a state funeral requies an act of parliament. Otherwise it's the same.

Kieran_Burns

and the jokes have started.

Jimmie Saville and Margaret Thatcher died in the same year: a good year for miners....

TheStone

Is there no day off?

rolf_f

Kieran_Burns wrote:

and the jokes have started.

Jimmie Saville and Margaret Thatcher died in the same year: a good year for miners....

Not bad but sadly not chronologically correct!

jonny_trousers

Kieran_Burns wrote:

and the jokes have started.

Jimmie Saville and Margaret Thatcher died in the same year: a good year for miners....

jamesco

Kieran_Burns wrote:

and the jokes have started.

Jimmie Saville and Margaret Thatcher died in the same year: a good year for miners....

She's only been in Hell for a short time but she's already shut down 3 furnaces...

jedster

Perhaps we see the difference between Leamington Spa and Teesside.

I grew up in Teesside, during the Thatcher era. I saw exactly what her policies did for the area and its people, I went to school with bright people who honestly believed that their whole education was a complete waste, because there was nothing at all in the area by way of work for the young: there was precious little for anyone.

I left. I had to. There was nothing.

Whilst people will laud her for "crushing the unions", they don't realise that in shutting down the major industries without replacing it with anything, she crippled certain regions for decades.

I grew up on Tyneside in the 80s. I thought she was wrong about most things for the reasons described above. My Dad worked in industry and we had to move away from a place we were very happy in order for him to find work.

As I've grown older and seen more of the world and of business I've realised that she didnt "shut down the major industries" she just refused to prop up businesses where we were not competitive. Some businesses that had the potential to be successful were lost. But many were not going to be successful and I don't think governments are any good at working out which are which. It's the job of govenrment to provide the environment in which businesses and capital markets can do that well.

Today I genuinely believe that someone needed to confront the unions and privitise the bloated, poorly managed state-owned industries and she had the guts to do it.

I still disagree with lots of the detail of what happened but on the central thrust of what she set out to do, she was right and despite everything, Britain is better off for her time as PM.

Headhuunter

jedster wrote:

Perhaps we see the difference between Leamington Spa and Teesside.

I grew up in Teesside, during the Thatcher era. I saw exactly what her policies did for the area and its people, I went to school with bright people who honestly believed that their whole education was a complete waste, because there was nothing at all in the area by way of work for the young: there was precious little for anyone.

I left. I had to. There was nothing.

Whilst people will laud her for "crushing the unions", they don't realise that in shutting down the major industries without replacing it with anything, she crippled certain regions for decades.

I grew up on Tyneside in the 80s. I thought she was wrong about most things for the reasons described above. My Dad worked in industry and we had to move away from a place we were very happy in order for him to find work.

As I've grown older and seen more of the world and of business I've realised that she didnt "shut down the major industries" she just refused to prop up businesses where we were not competitive. Some businesses that had the potential to be successful were lost. But many were not going to be successful and I don't think governments are any good at working out which are which. It's the job of govenrment to provide the environment in which businesses and capital markets can do that well.

Today I genuinely believe that someone needed to confront the unions and privitise the bloated, poorly managed state-owned industries and she had the guts to do it.

I still disagree with lots of the detail of what happened but on the central thrust of what she set out to do, she was right and despite everything, Britain is better off for her time as PM.

Exactly, my south-centric view of Thatcher's policies, growing up with Tory voting parents is that she simply assisted in closing massive dinosaur industries like ship building and coal mining which could no longer support themselves or compete on a global scale and that what she was trying to do was reduce the tax burden on successful industry to allow it flourish and hopefully replace the industrial giants of the past as employers.

With hindsight of course, the extent to which these major industrial employers of the north have been replaced is debatable but I should think Mrs Thatcher would have argued that it's not the state/government's responsibility to provide employment, it's the state's job to provide a framework within which private enterprise can flourish, so I doubt she felt responsible for replacing coal mining and shipbuilding etc as in her view it would not have been government's job to do that.

rjsterry

CiB wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Us young people can read you know ;-).

Shame you can't write, or use the correct title. Thatcher Dies. Neat, concise, rude, ignorant. I'll let you off crass as at least you didn't title it 'Thatch dies'.

She was a married woman with a title. It wouldn't have taken much to include either in the thread title. Furkin ignorant leftie next Tuesdays.

I've nothing to add. Nobody cares what anyone else thinks on an internet forum, but it gives a few people an opportunity to wave their right-on credentials around. Carry on everyone.

Oh, what a martyr you are CiB.

rolf_f

According to the BBC News, there are some people around who weren't even born when she came into power! Who'd have thought?!

rick_chasey

Rolf F wrote:

According to the BBC News, there are some people around who weren't even born when she came into power! Who'd have thought?!

True.

I mainly find the rehersed nature of this whole event very tedious.

I mean, look at the BBC prog that's going on now. They didn't make that today did they? That's a full blown bbc documentary that has taken a good amount of time to produce. That's proof, if any, that her death has no current relevance, but is a great opportunity for more '80s nostalgia. In case we haven't had enough the last 6 years.

The outrage about the isthatcherdeadyet? website. Also tedious.

I guess I don't have the same nostalgia others do, since, well, I was too young / wasn't around to remember. So it's just the same VTs they've been showing for the past 15 years, and the same sun headline.

Oh, she used a funny pronoun to announce she was a grandmother? Oh yeah, that's only the 50th time I've heard it. Brilliant.

As a side note...
Generally I've never understood the whole full on praise for people when they're dead. I imagine they'd rather hear it when they were alive! - but I imagine that's just a cultural thing.

People also do it when they know you're leaving. People are never nicer to you than when you're about to leave / they know they won't have to see you, which is rather unnerving.....anyway, i digress.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

According to the BBC News, there are some people around who weren't even born when she came into power! Who'd have thought?!

True.

I mainly find the rehersed nature of this whole event very tedious.

I mean, look at the BBC prog that's going on now. They didn't make that today did they? That's a full blown bbc documentary that has taken a good amount of time to produce. That's proof, if any, that her death has no current relevance, but is a great opportunity for more '80s nostalgia. In case we haven't had enough the last 6 years.

The outrage about the isthatcherdeadyet? website. Also tedious.

I guess I don't have the same nostalgia others do, since, well, I was too young / wasn't around to remember. So it's just the same VTs they've been showing for the past 15 years, and the same sun headline.

Oh, she used a funny pronoun to announce she was a grandmother? Oh yeah, that's only the 50th time I've heard it. Brilliant.

As a side note...
Generally I've never understood the whole full on praise for people when they're dead. I imagine they'd rather hear it when they were alive! - but I imagine that's just a cultural thing.

People also do it when they know you're leaving. People are never nicer to you than when you're about to leave / they know they won't have to see you, which is rather unnerving.....anyway, i digress.

You know, you can be quite touchingly naive sometimes. All the more so as (IIRC) you read history.

rick_chasey

It's not naive. It's just being young enough for it to be boring.

Similar, but not the same :P.

I never enjoyed history of big political leaders anyway, probably for the same reason I find all this tedious. Though obviously not tedious enough to write about it and give it some thought .

rick_chasey

From a historial perspective I guess it is interesting to see how Thatchter has been distilled into the collective memory, and what role media or not had in that.

Rather like people remember the dead from wars they were too young to witness I can "remember" Thatcher from a collective memory perspective. Most people trot out the usual tropes, the sun headline blah blah.

Ocassionally you get someone who actually puts out their experience of her policies which is a little more interesting, but broadly as time as gone on and she has faded from public view and interaction (now entirely) even the talking heads on this documentary seem to slip into what only feels like a well worn cliche already.

Strong, devisive, kind to those on a one to one (tbh, politicans have to be, it's kinda their job), a genuine convinction politician who lost it a bit at the end, like anyone would after over a decade in power. No particular insight there.

Big_Paul

She holds quite a unique honour, she's one of the few people to have both factions here in NI wanting her blood at the same time. This is the woman who said NI was "as British as Finchley" before signing the Anglo Irish Agreement which led to Paisley's famous "Never Never Never" speech, and on the other side she was hated as one step up from Satan himself.

She vowed to crack down on terrorists yet created an atmosphere where terrorists went out killing more people, said she'd deny them the oxygen of publicity yet created the ludicrous situation where dubbing their words put them on the front pages worldwide.

It's funny how her hardline policies kept the killings going, yet as soon as she was ousted, things started getting better bit by bit.

ddraver

jamesco wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

I can never get the left's hatred of Thatcher, they believe in Democracy andshe was voted in by a majority of people

Well, no, she never got a majority of the people.

Here're the Conservative popular vote numbers:

1979 43.9%
1983 42.4%
1987 42.2%

You could argue that she had a majority from her peers in parliament, but that's quite a different thing.

Did you Vote for AV?

Stevo_666

jedster wrote:

I grew up on Tyneside in the 80s. I thought she was wrong about most things for the reasons described above. My Dad worked in industry and we had to move away from a place we were very happy in order for him to find work.

As I've grown older and seen more of the world and of business I've realised that she didnt "shut down the major industries" she just refused to prop up businesses where we were not competitive. Some businesses that had the potential to be successful were lost. But many were not going to be successful and I don't think governments are any good at working out which are which. It's the job of govenrment to provide the environment in which businesses and capital markets can do that well.

Today I genuinely believe that someone needed to confront the unions and privitise the bloated, poorly managed state-owned industries and she had the guts to do it.

I still disagree with lots of the detail of what happened but on the central thrust of what she set out to do, she was right and despite everything, Britain is better off for her time as PM.

+1

I grew up near Middlesbrough in the 70's and 80's - same take on it as you. We need someone else like like her in charge just now.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

jedster wrote:

I grew up on Tyneside in the 80s. I thought she was wrong about most things for the reasons described above. My Dad worked in industry and we had to move away from a place we were very happy in order for him to find work.

As I've grown older and seen more of the world and of business I've realised that she didnt "shut down the major industries" she just refused to prop up businesses where we were not competitive. Some businesses that had the potential to be successful were lost. But many were not going to be successful and I don't think governments are any good at working out which are which. It's the job of govenrment to provide the environment in which businesses and capital markets can do that well.

Today I genuinely believe that someone needed to confront the unions and privitise the bloated, poorly managed state-owned industries and she had the guts to do it.

I still disagree with lots of the detail of what happened but on the central thrust of what she set out to do, she was right and despite everything, Britain is better off for her time as PM.

+1

I grew up near Middlesbrough in the 70's and 80's - same take on it as you. We need someone else like like her in charge just now.

Isn't the bone of contention more to do with how that deindistrualisation occured? Having 30,000 people become (structurally) unemployed in one city in the space of 5 years isn't ideal - let alone replicating that across many others. Uncompetitive business is uncompetitive and will go out anyway, but a bit more structure around realigning labour towards more compeititive business doesn't harm anyone. Right?

cyclingprop

Apparently there is work going as a spelling checker, Rick.

curium

The Beginner wrote:

I can never get the left's hatred of Thatcher, they believe in Democracy andshe was voted in by a majority of people and did EXACTLY what she said she was going to do, which would be rare now (and certainly was (we now know) rare under Tony Blair - history will tell over the latest crew), so they should celebrate her premiership as a victory for democracy even if they disagree with what she did.

43.9% was the highest share of the vote (1979 general election) that she ever achieved. If you take just the labour and liberal vote together, more people voted against her than for her although this is not unusual under our electoral system. I just wanted to correct you.
If you consider the situation in Scotland, she was akin to an unelected dictator.

Main problem many have with Thatcher is that she gave rise to the "I'm alright jack" attitude in society which has been propagated by successive governments. While she can't be blamed for everything that has gone wrong with the deregulated market economy, she was the architect. As we have seen with the banks, ultimately it is society who has to pick up the pieces when it all goes wrong (All of us! Even the poorest) so it is unfair that when it is going smoothly only a minority get to enjoy the spoils.

curium

jedster wrote:

I've grown older and seen more of the world and of business I've realised that she didnt "shut down the major industries" she just refused to prop up businesses where we were not competitive. Some businesses that had the potential to be successful were lost. But many were not going to be successful and I don't think governments are any good at working out which are which. It's the job of govenrment to provide the environment in which businesses and capital markets can do that well.

Today I genuinely believe that someone needed to confront the unions and privitise the bloated, poorly managed state-owned industries and she had the guts to do it.

I still disagree with lots of the detail of what happened but on the central thrust of what she set out to do, she was right and despite everything, Britain is better off for her time as PM.

The problem is that many of the things she privatised she did so for ideological reasons. She enriched a few at the expense of the many. Railways, power stations and water companies should belong to the state. Privatising them provided no meaningful increase in competition, they have not become cheaper yet those lucky enough to own shares or be on the boards have enjoyed undeserved windfalls.

tailwindhome

Apparently the threat of nuclear apocalypse will only hold our collective attention for 48 hrs.

rolf_f

At the dentist this morning - only paper present = Daily Mail. First 25 pages entirely devoted to fawning, entirely uncritical (as far as I could see) guff about her and if that wasn't enough there was a 12 page souvenier pull out as well :roll:

jedster

"Uncompetitive business is uncompetitive and will go out anyway, but a bit more structure around realigning labour towards more compeititive business doesn't harm anyone. Right?"

To an extent, this is one of the issues of detail that I felt her Government's got wrong. So yes. But they actually did try a few things you know. Enterprise zones yada, yada. Remember that it was at this time that Nissan set up in Sunderland based on some investment incentives plus improving labour flexibility. Government departments were moved out to the industrial regions too (unfortunately leaving us the legacy of areas like the NE now being rather dominated by the public sector). I have some sympathy with the view that if the government had propped up more ailing businesses to "tide them over" then the pressure for labour reform and the (essential in my view) clipping of union power would have been weakened - some of this pain was necessary to get reforms through.

I do remember feeling very angry at the time that a lot of the rhetoric from London seemed to be that the hardship in the industrial areas was somehow the fault of the people there for not being energetic and entrepreneurial enough, that if people just worked harder it would all be alright. Pretty unrealistic if you live in a town like the Consett where the steelworks dominated the economy and closed overnight. Funilly enough, the speeches sound a bt more nuanced and less critical now than I remember them... context is everything.