Thatcher dies.

walkingbootweather

So HH, what would your advice to the Greeks be? Presumably you would suggest that the Greek Government reduces funding for certain sectors? What should those affected workers then do?

Headhuunter

walkingbootweather wrote:

So HH, what would your advice to the Greeks be? Presumably you would suggest that the Greek Government reduces funding for certain sectors? What should those affected workers then do?

What can they do? Their government mismanaged finances and over borrowed when times were good and now the country is about to default. Even if the government manages to find long term finance, they will surely need to cut costs and all this will affect the man on the street... It's unavoidable.

walkingbootweather

I think we are agreed that something needs to be done. The question is what? How do you identify which group is hit? Do you 'look after' those most likely to vote for you at the expense of the group that is unlikely to vote for you anyway? Are you going to be honest and admit what the implications are to that group and to the wider society?

Headhuunter

walkingbootweather wrote:

I think we are agreed that something needs to be done. The question is what? How do you identify which group is hit? Do you 'look after' those most likely to vote for you at the expense of the group that is unlikely to vote for you anyway? Are you going to be honest and admit what the implications are to that group and to the wider society?

I should think everyone in Greece will be affected. If the economy there collapses the ripples will cause problems across Europe, more locally, in Greece itself, clearly those who need to earn a living will suffer heavily as they lose their jobs and the government has already decided to heavily tax the savings of the "rich"

walkingbootweather

In Greece as in Thatcher's Britain, austerity means different things to different people. If you are wealthy you can tighten your belt a bit and downsize your car from a Merc to a Ford. If you are educated, you can perhaps up sticks and move to a different part of the world. If you are an honest hard-working but low skilled individual your options are pretty limited. I can understand the rational for Thatcher needing to defeat the Unions, and to reduce investment in loss making industry, but the fact is that her policies consigned huge numbers of people and whole communities to the scrap heap, and we can only assume she knew this. Other courses of action were available that would have been less damaging, and just maybe if they had lived in Tory voting or marginal constituencies, a lifeline would have been offered.

daviesee

walkingbootweather wrote:

In Greece as in Thatcher's Britain, austerity means different things to different people. If you are wealthy you can tighten your belt a bit and downsize your car from a Merc to a Ford. If you are educated, you can perhaps up sticks and move to a different part of the world. If you are an honest hard-working but low skilled individual your options are pretty limited.

Pretty much sums up every Country outside Dictatorship or Communism. If anyone comes up with the answer they could be very, very rich.

walkingbootweather

Well the Cypriots had a different solution. I'm not commenting on which solution is preferable only concluding that Governments do have a choice, and if you plump for a solution that disadvantages one group, don't be surprised if your popularity within that group drops.

Stevo_666

UndercoverElephant wrote:

I would agree that in some cases the industries that were demolished were uncompetitive in the modern era, and that in some cases the unions were blinkered in their pursuit of what they felt was fair for their workers. In some cases the unions should have accepted that some cuts were necessary in places where the factories were unprofitable, as this would probably have given a slower transition towards different, and more competitive industry.

But it wasn't like that. Was every coal mine unprofitable? Far from it. Some were more than profitable, but they were still closed. Was every ship-builder a drain on national resources? Certainly not. Some of our industries were more than sustainable, but the baby was thrown out.

Whoever said that it wasn't government's job to provide jobs and helping to transition the workers into new employment is blinkered beyond belief. Do you think that jobs weren't created and businesses encouraged within the Conservative heartlands during this era? The South-East in particular did very well over the time, but regions which were very-much against the Conservative government were left to rot. Why was that?

If they'd had the foresight to offer tax breaks for new businesses in the area at a time when the old ones were being shut down, we may not have had the decades of endemic and perpetual unemployment in the old industrial areas. But that wouldn't have had the desired effect.

It's as if there was nothing wrong with that part of the UK before she got into power and it always was bit rough. I remember as a kid seeing plenty of 'industrial wastelands' along the Tees - for example a lot of the shipbuilding had already gone by the late 70's IIRC. In the end with governent attempts to manipulate things usually being a bit inefficient they could have wasted billions and the region wouldn't have been much better IMO.

Same as you, I moved away but that's just part of the natural economic re-alignment of things.

daviesee

Stevo 666 wrote:

Same as you, I moved away but that's just part of the natural economic re-alignment of things.

I think that's the rub.
Pre Thatcher, the vast majority of the population wouldn't have contemplated moving for work. Her policies forced that movement. For better or worse. In my case better but it didn't feel it at the time and it didn't suit most.

Kieran_Burns

PBo

Don't understand why we are shelling out on the ceremonial funeral. Good to see the money saved by changing disability benefits has gone to good use!!!

Also, nobody can deny she was very divisive and many people hated her, so seems a bit much to be honest. I am actually fearing the worst in terms of aggro..

Why the hell are parliament returning to have a debate about her?...

"Mr speaker, I would put it to the house that baroness thatcher is dead"
"Hear, hear, yes, blah, yes, hear hear etc."

Errrrrr.....

TheStone

PBo wrote:

Don't understand why we are shelling out on the ceremonial funeral. Good to see the money saved by changing disability benefits has gone to good use!!!

Couldn't care less myself, but it won't be a lot of money in the whole scheme of things and she does have a fairly important place within the countries history (more than the queen mother or Di for instance)

PBo wrote:

Why the hell are parliament returning to have a debate about her?...

"Mr speaker, I would put it to the house that baroness thatcher is dead"
"Hear, hear, yes, blah, yes, hear hear etc."

That I don't get. Who cares.
More to the point, why are they on holiday??

davmaggs

You want MPs to be on holiday as much as possible, that way they stop messing about with laws. Imagine if there was a complete freeze on all legislation (NHS, Education etc etc) except emergencies for a year.

jedster

Two really good comment pieces in The Times today (paywall so no linkies)

Mark Hodkinson explains why even rational/sensible people in the industrial North get unreasonably vitriolic about her still.
"her passing has opened in otherwise decent, kindly, middle-aged folk a portal to a past where anger ran blood red"
"That condescending smile, spray-on hair, ridiculous faux-husky voice - we knew no woman who looked or sounded as she did. AMong my friends and colleagues, no one voted Tory or expressed fondness for Thatcher. To have done so would have been a betrayal of our class, our northern-ness... It was an easy stereotype. We were young, we needed an enemy. The complexities of politics were beyond us. We viewed her as if she had been assembled in a lab and the scientists had forgotten to install the humility and compassion.... A few weeks ago... I ventured that she might have been, despite herself, a brute force for modernisation. I was asked to shut up or sup up and leave by a group of people I'd trust with my life."

Danny Finkelstein makes the case that she didnt really divide Britain, those divisions were created in the 60s and 70s by the Trade Union's unwillingness to compromise in the National Interest. She inherited the divisions but chose to confront and address them rather than continue to appease.
"The Left wanted policies that were simply impractical and unacceptable. They could not be conceded, no matter how angry it made the unions that therir demands were denied"

"I was a member of the SDP during the miners' strike and argued then, as I do now, that the Government might have done more to help thise in pit villages to find work. But this is not what the strike was about, nor what the miners asked for. They argued that there was no such thing as an uneconomic pit and that we should use deep-mined British coal, however difficult or expensive to extract. Such a demand was impossible to yield to. MT was not being divisive by refusing to yield to it."

tailwindhome

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... ibute.html


I hope a list is published of those who claim.

Stevo_666

jedster wrote:

Two really good comment pieces in The Times today (paywall so no linkies)

Mark Hodkinson explains why even rational/sensible people in the industrial North get unreasonably vitriolic about her still.
"her passing has opened in otherwise decent, kindly, middle-aged folk a portal to a past where anger ran blood red"
"That condescending smile, spray-on hair, ridiculous faux-husky voice - we knew no woman who looked or sounded as she did. AMong my friends and colleagues, no one voted Tory or expressed fondness for Thatcher. To have done so would have been a betrayal of our class, our northern-ness... It was an easy stereotype. We were young, we needed an enemy. The complexities of politics were beyond us. We viewed her as if she had been assembled in a lab and the scientists had forgotten to install the humility and compassion.... A few weeks ago... I ventured that she might have been, despite herself, a brute force for modernisation. I was asked to shut up or sup up and leave by a group of people I'd trust with my life."

Danny Finkelstein makes the case that she didnt really divide Britain, those divisions were created in the 60s and 70s by the Trade Union's unwillingness to compromise in the National Interest. She inherited the divisions but chose to confront and address them rather than continue to appease.
"The Left wanted policies that were simply impractical and unacceptable. They could not be conceded, no matter how angry it made the unions that therir demands were denied"

"I was a member of the SDP during the miners' strike and argued then, as I do now, that the Government might have done more to help thise in pit villages to find work. But this is not what the strike was about, nor what the miners asked for. They argued that there was no such thing as an uneconomic pit and that we should use deep-mined British coal, however difficult or expensive to extract. Such a demand was impossible to yield to. MT was not being divisive by refusing to yield to it."

I can understand the first bit pretty well, having grown up in an area where they'd vote for a hat stand if it had a red rosette on it.

What a lot of people - especially in the unions - hated was that she stood up to them and eventually put them in their place. In the late 70's the unions were effectively holding the country to ransom (if anyone remembers the power cuts, rubbish piling up on the streets, continual strikes over something or other etc), so what she did was necessary IMO.

lostboysaint

David Cameron has just sent his official letter to Thatcher Towers.

"I regret to inform you that due to recent events you now have too many bedrooms....."

daviesee

lostboysaint wrote:

David Cameron has just sent his official letter to Thatcher Towers.

"I regret to inform you that due to recent events you now have too many bedrooms....."

Heard it a few times. Pity there is nobody there claiming benefits to make it remotely possible.
Keep em coming though.

hoolio

TailWindHome wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9983897/MPs-can-claim-up-to-3750-for-returning-to-Parliament-for-Thatcher-tribute.html


I hope a list is published of those who claim.

Why? If I was on holiday and got called back to work early I'd expect to be allowed to claim additional flight costs. Not all MPs are millionaires.

walkingbootweather

daviesee wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

David Cameron has just sent his official letter to Thatcher Towers.

"I regret to inform you that due to recent events you now have too many bedrooms....."

Heard it a few times. Pity there is nobody there claiming benefits to make it remotely possible.
Keep em coming though.

Didn't she spend her final days at the Ritz?

Seems appropriate, what with her being crackers an all

Well you asked.

walkingbootweather

hoolio wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9983897/MPs-can-claim-up-to-3750-for-returning-to-Parliament-for-Thatcher-tribute.html


I hope a list is published of those who claim.

Why? If I was on holiday and got called back to work early I'd expect to be allowed to claim additional flight costs. Not all MPs are millionaires.

Well if you were called back to do some useful work I'd agree with you. It seems to me that many MPs that return especially for this will do so to get themselves on tv or to make political capital.

TheStone

hoolio wrote:

Why? If I was on holiday and got called back to work early I'd expect to be allowed to claim additional flight costs. Not all MPs are millionaires.

Do they have to come back?
Can they make a stand and just say this it's pointless nonsense and they're not wasting a holiday and tax payers money on it?

rick_chasey

TheStone wrote:

hoolio wrote:

Why? If I was on holiday and got called back to work early I'd expect to be allowed to claim additional flight costs. Not all MPs are millionaires.

Do they have to come back?
Can they make a stand and just say this it's pointless nonsense and they're not wasting a holiday and tax payers money on it?

Would be accused, righlty or wrongly as dancing on her grave.

It's just Tories baiting labour backbenchers into saying something that can be considered disrespectful and it's an attempt to energise the base.

jedster

Do they have to come back?
Can they make a stand and just say this it's pointless nonsense and they're not wasting a holiday and tax payers money on it?

No and they dont even have to make a stand, they can just not show up

tailwindhome

hoolio wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9983897/MPs-can-claim-up-to-3750-for-returning-to-Parliament-for-Thatcher-tribute.html


I hope a list is published of those who claim.

Why? If I was on holiday and got called back to work early I'd expect to be allowed to claim additional flight costs. Not all MPs are millionaires.

Would you be called back into to work to stand around talking to yourself if a senior manager who retired 2 decades previously had died?

Wouldn't have thought so.

Coach H

Was an observer of an interesting "discussion" on facebook were a guy who was the son, grandson and great-grandson of miners spent quite a few posts celebrating and extolling the virtues of Scargill and his protection of the rights of the miners. He also pointed out that his Dad stll paid his NUM subs despite being one of those put out of work.

Until someone else pointed out that last year Scargill took the NUM to court as, due to the fact they are almost bankrupt and only surviving due to handouts from the TUC, they wanted to stop paying the rent on Scargill's Barbican appartment 'for life' that he had written into his terms. The judge agreed with the NUM.

Miners son didn't post again on the subject.

For me the end of the industries was due to BOTH Thatcher AND the Unions. Thatcher refused to compromise if the Unions didn't and the Unions just refused to compromise.

Kieran_Burns

I suppose trying to point out that Labour were responsible for more mines closing than the Conservatives would be pointless?

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftw ... tcher.html

These are the figures for the sharply declining number of coal mines open each year under those Labour Governments.

1964 545
1965 .. 504
1966 .. 442
1967 .. 406
1968 .. 330
1969 .. 304

1974 .. 250
1975 .. 241
1976 .. 239
1977 .. 231
1978 .. 223
1979 .. 219

These are the figures for the Thatcher years:

1979 .. 219
1980 .. 213
1981 .. 200
1982 .. 191
1983 .. 170
1984 .. 169
1985 .. 133
1986 .. 110
1987 .. 94
1988 .. 86
1989 .. 73
1990 .. 65

but hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a bit of vitriol

Stevo_666

Good point KB.

Like I said before, there seems to be a lot of people under the mistaken impression that we were in some sort of socialist utopia before Maggie came to power. If by 'socialist utopia' you mean 20%+ inflation, massive industrial unrest, declining traditional industries and the Labour Govt of the time having to go to the IMF for a bail out - then then I suppose they were right. We were the Greece of the 1970's and Thatcher got us out of that mess. Seems a lot of people resent her for that...

tailwindhome

I know nostalgia ain't what it used to be, but there were some serious heavyweight politicians back in the day.

I'm not sure they could make Spitting Image today.

Stevo_666

TailWindHome wrote:

I know nostalgia ain't what it used to be, but there were some serious heavyweight politicians back in the day.

I'm not sure they could make Spitting Image today.

True, the parodies of the likes of Maggie, Norman Tebbitt, David Owen, Ronald Reagan etc were top notch. Some of todays lot need pity not parody.