Thatcher's dead

[Aspyrational]

Unemployment under Labour - 1m
Unemployment under her first term peaked at 3.6m. Maybe 5m as they changed the criteria for who was counted.

It didn't go down to 1.6m until 1989.

Again, do you agree with Section 28?

There was a huge amount of inefficient industries at the time, with workers on the payroll with nothing to do. A shake out of these was needed to increase productivity and competitiveness. As you say it did go down , and the manufacturing base, supposedly decimated, was producing more in 1990 than 1979

As a bit of context, can you tell us how living through the Thatcher years affected you ?

 

[pluk]

Unless you were talking about her dementia. It's unpleasant, and distressing... and yet I feel it is a brilliant wish upon a worst enemy. You could literally force all of their loved ones to watch them forget them as if they didn't exist.

So not only is extreme mental health an amusing punishment, but the devastating effect and suffering of mental health on the friends and family of that person, who whatever you think of her have done nothing wrong themselves, is 'brilliant'.

Really?

 

[Joel]

Can we remind people once again... for the last time...

Swearing isn't permitted outside of the Tavern, be it in the form of veiled (that is **** to you), conjuncted, jumbled, slang or any other implication of swearing, including posting obvious videos that contain swearing in the title. Its not needed, and its not welcome in this forum, and 4 edits of posts have now been made for it in this thread.

Swipes at people or personal jabs aren't welcome either. Keep your feelings, thoughts and opinions to the debate and subject, not about each other personally.

You can catch the Member Expectations here once again if you need to remind yourself:

http://www.towersstreet.com/about/member-expectations/

Any further issues will be dealt with by personal warnings, so please, I know its a heated and very topical subject, and debate is very healthy, but stick to the rules.

Thanks.

 

[ChocolateStarfish]

Unemployment under Labour - 1m
Unemployment under her first term peaked at 3.6m. Maybe 5m as they changed the criteria for who was counted.

It didn't go down to 1.6m until 1989.

Again, do you agree with Section 28?

There was a huge amount of inefficient industries at the time, with workers on the payroll with nothing to do. A shake out of these was needed to increase productivity and competitiveness. As you say it did go down , and the manufacturing base, supposedly decimated, was producing more in 1990 than 1979

As a bit of context, can you tell us how living through the Thatcher years affected you ?

He can't because he didn't, "me dad sed she wor a bad un" springs to mind.
If you do a bit of "balanced" research you soon come to the conclusion that she was the best PM we had since Churchill, maybe ever.

She did what was needed to drag this country working productively again, yes a lot of people lost there jobs but basic economics tells us the reason for this.
When you employ someone they have to make more than they cost or you will go bust, and that's the point, Britain was bust when she came to power, The sick man of Europe.
She changed all of that and some people who were on cushy numbers lost out, but most of us gained and UK plc became profitable again.
Then Blair/Brown got in and spent it all, racked up huge debts and created a something for nothing economy again.

 

[James]

Thatcher ruined this country, fact.

All political parties and MPs mess up now and again, or mess a few things up in their time, or in rare cases mess up things big time that ruins their party for a good while (looking at you Clegg). However Thatcher ruined things more than any other prime minister we've had control this country. That why she earned the title 'The Iron Lady' and that's why, even after over 20 years of her leaving office, she is one of the most prominent prime ministers in British history.

I'm not defending any other parties or prime ministers here. I think they are all as bad as each other to be honest.

At the core of it, Thatcher did more bad than good and the bad outweighs any good she did for the country. That's why people still get angry of what happened to the country during that era and that's why people hated her so much. Unless you were rich, Thatcher probably screwed your family over in one way or another.

Please may I note that my views are not from Google or the internet. I've spoken to family about the Thatcher years (I come from a middle class background) and other adults who lived during that time. I've also done some small studies on the era myself for my degree work with reading a few books (yes books do still exist in 2013!).

Out of everything I've learned about her, she kind of deserved the hatred she got. I personally couldn't care less about her death. However I think it's time people finally leave her to rest in piece and I don't condone celebrating a death at all.

 

[pluk]

Can we remind people once again... for the last time...

Swearing isn't permitted outside of the Tavern

Apologies for my little swear. I hadn't looked at where this was and presumed it was the tavern due to the tastelessness throughout.

Thatcher ruined this country, fact. opinion.

There, got that for you. I'm no Thatcher fan, but people that keep saying this is not helping your argument. The two reelections, and further Tory reelection under Major, suggest it's not true, or certainly is not for the majority of the country, as such a definite.

 

[willb]

OK, people talking of facts straight. Right-to-buy depleted housing stock and resulted in a mass influx of landlords, it also resulted in a housing price boom, that bust along with the rest of the boom/bust Tory economic policy, which then resulted in 1000s of repossessed homes.

Yes. Excellent work that.

Start the demise of communism, whilst introducing the premise of privatisation to the world, making a fortune for their chums out of our natural resources, and blowing the lot. Yes, excellent again. She also managed to do this whilst being chums with a genocidal dictator.

She screwed us all again, by beginning the deregulation of the City, which led (contrary to the idea it was Labours fault the global economy collapsed which Tories seem to spew a lot now lol!) to the financial crisis we have now.

It is absolutely amazing, how little people on here know, who accuse others of not knowing much. I can take disagreements, opinions, different effects from different places/backgrounds, but when those who have suffered make remark, and then get accused of not getting their facts right - by people who don't have their facts straight, I'm sorry whether this gets me into trouble or not, I HAVE to take that to task.

Thatchers policy was based on boom and bust. In or out. White or Black. Straight or Gay. Rich or Poor.

If you were any of the latter, you'd had it. She then bred a climate of demonising the latter, so that people who were doing well, stuck with her as they were OK, and it was better than being on the wrong side.

Some did very, very well - enough to keep her in power, and in this country due to our voting system, that is all you need and screw the rest.

There are no facts in this post, it is all socialist opinion.

A more useful post would have been to actually put down real statistics and then make an observation from this!

I'll cover your first point as an example.

In 1979 only 55% of people were home owners, right to buy gave the poorest a chance to own rather than socially rent their property. Now in 2013 the figure is over 70%

The down side of this was a lack of social housing and the que for them being the size of 1 million. This number stayed as it is until labour come to power and increased to where it is today at 1.7.

Now a good post now would be to form an unbiased view based on these facts. It is all too easy to find something to back your case on google/choice of newspaper and blind yourself to both sides of an argument. You could probably even find an argument to support jimmy savills actions!

My view on what I have just posted, Thatcher played an important part in giving the majority of families a chance of home owner side however her neglect to build more social housing for those that needed it is a sorry oversight. These figures however are also biased by job losses due to union strike action, but that is a completely different post.

Nothing is black and white, ever. The difficulty is when your family have been directly effected by a decision for the worse, but the majority may have benefited. Visa versa.

 

[TheMan]

There are no facts in this post, it is all socialist opinion.

A more useful post would have been to actually put down real statistics and then make an observation from this!
Now a good post now would be to form an unbiased view based on these facts. It is all too easy to find something to back your case on google/choice of newspaper and blind yourself to both sides of an argument. You could probably even find an argument to support jimmy savills actions!

My view on what I have just posted, Thatcher played an important part in giving the majority of families a chance of home owner side however her neglect to build more social housing for those that needed it is a sorry oversight. These figures however are also biased by job losses due to union strike action, but that is a completely different post.

Nothing is black and white, ever. The difficulty is when your family have been directly effected by a decision for the worse, but the majority may have benefited. Visa versa.

Boom and Bust:
"Britain got hit by two major recessions under Thatcher, which sandwiched the boom of the 1980s but even that boom never saw GDP grow by more than a couple of percent." - So even in her Halcyon days as PM, she couldn't manage the economy properly.

Property:
At the same time as the council house sell off, interest rates rose to record levels of 17% and repossessions rose to match. In 1991, 75,500 properties were repossesed, the peak, and 186,649 cases reached the courts.

Poverty:
Poverty went up under Thatcher, according to these figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. In 1979, 13.4% of the population lived below 60% of median incomes before housing costs. By 1990, it had gone up to 22.2%, or 12.2m people, with huge rises in the mid-1980s.

Inequality:
With it came a huge rise in inequality. This shows the gini coefficient, which is the most common method of measuring inequality. Under gini, a score of one would be a completely unequal society; zero would be completely equal. Britain's gini score went up from 0.253 to 0.339 by the time Thatcher resigned.
Interactive Graph:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/datablog/2013/apr/08/britain-changed-margaret-thatcher-charts

Rather a sharp peak there, and society has yet to recover from it.

Rest of the points have been more than referenced enough already. Gay, poor, etc already more than aptly covered, so I shall not carve those out again.

An unbiased post in return to my original, would not make such assumptions that I am a socialist - of which I am not. There are many socialist ideals that I far from share. I do not have a "side" or a "colour" to which I am affiliated to, the world changes and your priority as a country must change with it or you become isolated.

In fact I believe socialism can actually damage a society at its core, because once again you are forcing a system of living upon those who do not want it - much like the Thatcher based capitalist crud we have now. Neither work practically in the extreme of "normal" politics, as proven by the 70s and 80s. The populous is far too diverse to have extremes of either end.

So, you tell me how she didn't deregulate the city, didn't contribute to the highest levels of poverty and recessions, hasn't contributed to this one, was a champion of gay rights and equality, kept the interest rates and economy stable, kept people in the homes they'd bought (which, when homes were repossessed, where did they go, because tons of the social housing stock and been flogged? Even cheap houses are not cheap at 17% interest!)

The mistake you made here Will, is you tried to defend Thatcher's policies in a way I don't believe even she would appreciate - she was proud of how she ran the country, unashamedly so, that is her main redeeming feature. When you argue falsely against the issues it caused, you detract massively from that fact.

"Is he one of us?" Was Thatcher's calling card. She took what she believed to be tough but necessary decisions for the good of her ideals, which she believed would work, and they did. You never heard her apologise for the damage she did, because she stuck by the principles that she believed in and succeeded massively in implementing the majority of them.

You cannot be a Thatcher apologist for her policies, and not accept the manner in which they were born out. It isn't like she shirked away from them!

You took one example, derided all the other thoughts in there which were summaries based upon her own policies, many of which have been adequately detailed numerous times already throughout the thread, and concluded it was all just socialist opinion.

If you were on her side and embraced her ideals, you were fine - if not, you were screwed, and she was proud of that fact, and it is in fact precisely that, which led to her ousting as party leader. This is kinda, Thatcher 101 stuff to be honest.

She destroyed society, as she proudly believed there was no such thing. Proven by marriage figures dropping dramatically and a selfish, self centred attitude being born we are paying dearly for now. You only need to take a peek outside to see the remnants of this everywhere.

Thatcher's legacy is indeed, self evident.

 

[ChocolateStarfish]

TheMan - you have too much time on your hands writing a post like that, you must either be a millionaire or a dole monkey. (And I don't see it being the former tbh)
Maybe you should spend some of that time doing a little more unbiased research, maybe avoid Wikipedia in future.

My colleagues told me about this site but I didn't believe people could be so ill informed I had to see it for myself.
I now see why enthusiasts walk around the resort with the attitude they do!

 

[Nick]

TheMan - you have too much time on your hands writing a post like that, you must either be a millionaire or a dole monkey. (And I don't see it being the former tbh)

Cool story bro.

Maybe you should spend some of that time doing a little more unbiased research, maybe avoid Wikipedia in future.

Oh, sorry, maybe we should ask for your opinion. I'm sure you'll be an expert on the subject, and impartial as well. What do you think the, O Great One?

My colleagues told me about this site but I didn't believe people could be so ill informed I had to see it for myself.
I now see why enthusiasts walk around the resort with the attitude they do!

Thanks for that huge generalisation. Really, really necessary.

See, I don't give a damn about Maggie. I don't really care about her time in politics, as I can't be bothered to research on something I'm not interested in, and instead, try an spend my time in a more productive way, looking at things I'm interested.

What I do care about is people who create an account on here to abuse someone. Surely if you're not a "a millionaire or a dole monkey", you should have something better to do with your time? Or maybe your just an arrogant, condescending hypocrite.

Sorry for being so frank with you, but I just don't see the point in what you're doing.

 

[Poisson]

I now see why enthusiasts walk around the resort with the attitude they do!

The cheerful, happy, helpful attitude every TS member I have come across has?

Keep it up people, I like you the way you are

 

[ChocolateStarfish]

TheMan - you have too much time on your hands writing a post like that, you must either be a millionaire or a dole monkey. (And I don't see it being the former tbh)

Cool story bro.

Maybe you should spend some of that time doing a little more unbiased research, maybe avoid Wikipedia in future.

Oh, sorry, maybe we should ask for your opinion. I'm sure you'll be an expert on the subject, and impartial as well. What do you think the, O Great One?

My colleagues told me about this site but I didn't believe people could be so ill informed I had to see it for myself.
I now see why enthusiasts walk around the resort with the attitude they do!

Thanks for that huge generalisation. Really, really necessary.

See, I don't give a crap about Maggie. I don't really care about her time in politics, as I can't be bothered to research on something I'm not interested in, and instead, try an spend my time in a more productive way, looking at things I'm interested.

What I do care about is people who create an account on here to abuse someone. Surely if you're not a "a millionaire or a dole monkey", you should have something better to do with your time? Or maybe your just an arrogant, condescending hypocrite.

Sorry for being so frank with you, but I just don't see the point in what you're doing.

It's ok to be frank, I'm sorry it came across that way it was not intended like that.

This is a rollercoaster fan site right? I thought you might be interested in real facts from someone in the industry, that's why I'm here.
I only posted in coffee corner because of the bias nature of most of the posts so far, it needed balance.
When I see something fact full on the other areas I'll contribute there as well.
Of course I can clear off if you don't want to know facts from within the industry.

 

[Plastic Person]

I think we could probably do without whatever knowledge you have on theme parks if you're going to refer to people putting in a researched argument as 'dole monkeys'.

Congratulations on your many successes otherwise.

 

[TheMan]

TheMan - you have too much time on your hands writing a post like that, you must either be a millionaire or a dole monkey. (And I don't see it being the former tbh)
Maybe you should spend some of that time doing a little more unbiased research, maybe avoid Wikipedia in future.

My colleagues told me about this site but I didn't believe people could be so ill informed I had to see it for myself.
I now see why enthusiasts walk around the resort with the attitude they do!

I think you may need to visit a topic that was created on my behalf...

"What hasn't the man done?".

There are a few close friends on here that know exactly what I am involved in, I also find it quite ironic that you dropped into the Shoutbox to proclaim people were being rude then decided to level an opinion as to my lifestyle based on reporting some things that were asked for clarity upon.

I felt you had a point - clearly they are far more experienced in forum life than I am, as I tend to give the benefit of any doubt initially.

I may unintentionally at times come across curt, but I am never deliberately provocatively rude or judgmental - which to be honest, has only cemented the point about attitudes in general as a result of those policies towards the end of my post.

Thank you, for proving me indomitably correct.

 

[ChocolateStarfish]

TheMan - you have too much time on your hands writing a post like that, you must either be a millionaire or a dole monkey. (And I don't see it being the former tbh)
Maybe you should spend some of that time doing a little more unbiased research, maybe avoid Wikipedia in future.

My colleagues told me about this site but I didn't believe people could be so ill informed I had to see it for myself.
I now see why enthusiasts walk around the resort with the attitude they do!

I think you may need to visit a topic that was created on my behalf...

"What hasn't the man done?".

There are a few close friends on here that know exactly what I am involved in, I also find it quite ironic that you dropped into the Shoutbox to proclaim people were being rude then decided to level an opinion as to my lifestyle based on reporting some things that were asked for clarity upon.

I felt you had a point - clearly they are far more experienced in forum life than I am, as I tend to give the benefit of any doubt initially.

I may unintentionally at times come across curt, but I am never deliberately provocatively rude or judgmental - which to be honest, has only cemented the point about attitudes in general as a result of those policies towards the end of my post.

Thank you, for proving me indomitably correct.

I seem to of caused offence for which I'm sorry, I think you seem to have micro analysed every word between you.
It was a joke about the length of your post that I've never seen anything like on a forum before.
And also in my opinion a little bias as well.
Oh well maybe I need to read your thread! (I can't believe you have your own thread? You must be like some kind of celeb on here hey)

 

[Craig]

Let's get back to the topic at hand rather than accusing and assuming people's occupations please - take any issues with individuals up via private message rather than diverting the topic .

 

[Pixie-Ro]

Not sure if this has been posted already, but an interesting read...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/09/russell-brand-margaret-thatcher

 

[willb]

TheMan,

You are assuming I'm a Thatcherite, I am not. What I am is someone who tries to form an opinion from unbiased sources.

I've seen those charts quite a lot over the past days since her death, and one can easily use them as an easy way to trash the years thatcher was in government.

They are however, meaningless with out knowing exactly if they are as a consequence of her leadership or consequential of the chance in social morality and the modernisation of the world.

What is also interesting is to see if these trends presented in the charts vary before and after their selected capture.

The equality index for instance, when labour was in power (Tony Blair). They changed the tax structure to help the poor and heavily tax the rich, but the paradox is that throughout their government the distance between poor and rich kept going.

What is a good use of time is to research if her policies directly effected the points you make and if they did, how.

 

[willb]

Also, this is a good unbiased read.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/did-margaret-thatcher-really-save-britain-8566596.html

 

[Plastic Person]

Also, this is a good unbiased read.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/did-margaret-thatcher-really-save-britain-8566596.html

Good piece, Will, thanks for that.

Unfortunately, I still regard some of her policies towards the working class to be borderline sociopathic. Neither Major nor Blair (both effective leaders in her mould), expressed any of the disdain and contempt she seemed to feel towards those in less fortunate or even just middling positions. I've seen far too many people use the words "Regardless of your politics", over the past few days, as if it doesn't affect the course of the lives of millions. Well yes, Thatcher was clearly a thick-skinned and determined leader, but her victories came at some cost to many.

She also hated the arts and culture more than any other leader, and although she actually helped alternative culture and music flourish, her disdain for anything not bound to corporate ties was equally disdainful.