bickster Posted January 1, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 1, 2013 The only reason she got re-elected was the Falklands. It wasn't ever a war however, well not until we'd won it before that it was a "conflict" And lets not forget, she was perfectly willing to cut the Falkland Islands off from British protection, one of the factors that gave the Argentinian Junto the green light to invade. They were withdrawing military presence from the area, HMS Endurance was being ordered home etc. Before the outbreak of hostilities she and the govt were trying to ditch the Falklands, it was to expensive. In fact even as British troops were landing she was still trying to work out a way of removing the link with the UK, she was exploring the possibility of some sort of UN / American protectorate for the islands, just to get it off Britain's books, during the conflict she was trying to come up with a diplomatic solution that gave Argentina a say in the running of the place. The Falklands was a huge pain in the arse for her but in the end it saved her government, they were deeply unpopular at the start of it but at the end of it, no one would have backed against them winning a second term, which they did. She then went on to completely bugger the country up in the next two terms, there was no stopping her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Thatcher had many qualities desirous in a strong leader. The two she lacked were a clue and a heart. Blair's party left this country in a worser state than back then.As I stated earlier as I wasnt around then I cant comment on how accurate that is Blair's greatest weakness was vanity. In Iraq he saw ticker-tape parades and an assured place in history as a successful War Prime Minister. Courted by the US, he succumbed to the bullshit. He was smarter than that, and he knows we know it. He has so much blood on his hands. Brown had too many faults to cover in one evening. Economic hardship caused by *unscrupulous trading on the US financial market 5 years ago. A nightmare for any incumbent government. Brown, generally regarded as a successful Chancellor, thinks 'This was my domain. I should look like I know what I'm doing, I must take action!' He should have dithered for a bit, we'd have got more for the gold. They all soiled themselves quite badly really. *Conspiracies abound on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 "Yes, I think I should have said the idea that we should destroy economic capacity and willingly create recession in order to reduce the deficit. As you say, the superstition about balanced budgets on which that is based has been around longer." I'm genuinely interested to hear your explanation about this. Cheers Nick First, the economic policies currently being followed are claimed to be in order to reduce the deficit in government spending. In fact it's more about achieving a redistribution of wealth from poor to rich, reducing the size of the state, and creating opportunities for private profit through privatising publicly owned resources - but let's take the policy at face value, and say it's about reducing deficits and eventually reducing debt. The policies under way at the moment are reducing the level of economic activity, reducing the national income, and thereby destroying both economic capacity and economic resources. That's a matter of public record. That lost output is lost forever. The government claim that this reduction in economic activity is the result of global factors, the euro crisis and so on, but that's actually a way of saying that they had hoped that the negative impact of taking money out of the economy would have been outweighed by growth from other things, which isn't happening. I don't imagine even Cameron and Osborne would claim to believe that cutting government spending doesn't have a depressive effect on economic activity, just that they thought it would by some unexplained mechanism (the confidence fairy) lead to growth in the private sector. The idea that governments should balance their budgets is based on a fundamentally false analogy between a household and the government. It misunderstands the interdependent relationship of sectors of the economy (if the government makes a surplus, then the private sector must make a deficit, unless foreign trade is sufficiently in surplus to outweigh this, which is the case for very few economies). This is why US government surpluses have historically been followed very quickly by recessions. In our current situation, with households trying to get themselves to a position of lower debt, and businesses not investing because of lack of demand caused by this deleveraging, then cutting government spending can only further reduce the overall level of economic activity. Not only do governments not have to balance the budget, there's a very strong argument that they should aim to run a deficit, if they are seeking to encourage economic growth. Not a level of deficit which outstrips any spare capacity in the economy, but a deficit all the same. My point is that the false analogy between households and governments allows the government to get away with the starting point that the deficit must be reduced, whereas people should be demanding they explain the consequences of this. Both the Labour Party and the media should be doing this, but actually both continue to allow the false imagery to continue unchallenged. I think it's largely because the idea that debt is bad and budgets should be balanced sound so intuitively plausible, and the difference in the role of a household and the issuer of the currency is oddly never discussed, that they expect great difficulty presenting a view which many people will think simply must be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I may be wrong but I got the impression the labour government previous were the ones who went to war on the unions ... In place of strife or something the white paper was called ?? The Labour government were split on it, and it was never enacted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 @ the thread tag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 We were **** long before Thatcher by circumstances and crap politicians and union leaders. Thatcher may have pushed the boat over the waterfall, but it had been going down pretty quickly since the middle of the 19th C and helped along by two world wars. But it helps to have a figure to blame it all on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 1, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 1, 2013 Yes I'll admit the 70's were utterly daft politically and mainly because of the unions holding the country to ransom, that did have to stop otherwise we would be in a worse place than we are now BUT... I hardly think the Witches solution of divide and conquer, with a huge amount of pillaging of public assets thrown in was the correct or only solution to the problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 @ the thread tag hadnt noticed before . I think it is regrettable that people feel the need to do that to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 inbeforethedrat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 (edited) Interesting info here...I thought she was more of a hawk on the Falklands pre-war than she actually was. Click Enlarge This Image Edited January 1, 2013 by maqroll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Exactly , my Hungarian family are fans of hers and the part she played in the end of the Cold War Of course there are those that will say she played no part in it , such is the blind hatred they have Tony unlike you and Awol many people do not put her as being the architect supreme that allowed changes that were happening anyway to proceed She had so little regard for working communities in the UK that she was happy to exploit and basically kill them off just as long as her supporters remained safe (richer) and secure. - interesting the same policies that seem to litter so many of the current Tory party. She was an evil (and probably still is) wicked bitch who when she does depart deserves nothing more than a drink to say good bye. The scars of her policies will remain for a lot longer away from the Tory heartlands of the south east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Just out of corosity but worse than now? I wasnt around back then but from a number of people I have spoken to they say Blair's party left this country in a worser state than back then.As I stated earlier as I wasnt around then I cant comment on how accurate that is How accurate is that? As accurate as Villa's shooting has been in the 3 matches prior to today I would say. Thatcher's impacts on the UK was at a time when the world was not suffering such global meltdown as we saw towards the end of the last Gvmt. Thatcher as some have pointed out basically sold off so much of the infrastructure that it left the UK weakened to drastic levels. As said before evil woman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 1, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 1, 2013 hadnt noticed before . I think it is regrettable that people feel the need to do that to be honest. I think its regrettable that some people have no sense of humour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 1, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 1, 2013 How accurate is that? As accurate as Villa's shooting has been in the 3 matches prior to today I would say. Thatcher's impacts on the UK was at a time when the world was not suffering such global meltdown as we saw towards the end of the last Gvmt. Thatcher as some have pointed out basically sold off so much of the infrastructure that it left the UK weakened to drastic levels. As said before evil woman Erm, not quite sure that's true mate. When she came to power this country was hand paddling up shit creek quite rapidly. She however used that situation to the advantage of her supporters, in order that they make money, lots of money in the recovery process (which her policies didn't actually have that much bearing on). Its all very familiar dontcha thunk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I think its regrettable that some people have no sense of humour. i don't think it was meant in an amusing way. Even if it was just because one person does not find it funny, does not mean that they have no sense of humour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 2, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 2, 2013 i don't think it was meant in an amusing way. Even if it was just because one person does not find it funny, does not mean that they have no sense of humour. I know it was, so did the person who spotted it, posted about it and laughed. I'll await the fatwa... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) how about those in the negative camp posting some positives, to disprove my theory? What are you wanting 'disproved'? Edited January 2, 2013 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmygreaves Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I kind of agree with this point of view... http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=AEeXQ-euxrw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAEeXQ-euxrw&gl=GB View from 4mins 50 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted January 2, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 2, 2013 I am of the general, non-expert opinion that Thatcher's great achievement was destroying the old Britain she at least professed to love. Whether what arose in its place is an improvement is another matter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted January 2, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 2, 2013 On Hayek, remember that his book she famously proclaimed as being 'what we believe', contained an essay entitled 'Why I Am Not a Conservative'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts