So, it is because of the way it happened and not the closures of the pits themselves then? So, when one argument has been proved as futile, another one pops up to muddy the name of Thatcher. Seriously, Wilson, the friend of the working man closed double the number of pits than Thatcher and yet no-one gave a hoot. When Thatcher does it, it is the end of the world. You cannot have it both ways. As far as I am concerned, Harold Wilson, although a Socialist, was the enemy of the Working Class and did more damage to families than Thatcher ever did.
Baroness Margaret Thatcher has Passed Away
- Thread starter Drifter
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
None have had the lasting effects of Thatcher MUM.
I am no fan of politicians, who is, but reserve special vitriol for this one.
Are you actually enquiring or just bleating on about champagne Socialism?
Of course they did. The ones who were striking in the 70s were fed the typical Wilson bull and they lapped it up. However, when someone from the Tories does it, then it is against the law. Sorry, but Wilson for me was a greater danger to the working class man than Thatcher, and the proof is in the statistics.
I have no idea what point you're attempting to make, you seem to have a personal agenda with Wilson.
No need to enquire when I have the statistics in front of me. It is about being independant and being able to think for yourself. I grew up in Manchester, my parents were labour supporters and I sit in the middle because I like to look at things objectively. Whether the way she did things was draconian or not, the point still stands that Wilson put more people on the dole queue than Margaret Thatcher.
Are you looking for a well done?
I'll stop clogging up the thread by replying, as you clearly have all the statistics and objective viewpoints sewn up - this thread is a wrap people.
Just as others have with Thatcher. What is your point? I have brought up statistics just as Marching has, have you? For me, the numbers don't lie. I neither like Thatcher or Wilson and have never voted labour or Conservative. However, I like to see things as they are in black and white. The statistics don't lie, if Wilson closed more mines than Thatcher and there is proof of that then, that makes him worse than Thatcher, however, there are those who are too
I have no idea what point you're attempting to make, you seem to have a personal agenda with Wilson.
to see this.So, Wilson shuts 290 pits but cares about the mining society. Thatcher closes 130 fewer pits but doesn't care about the mining society.
Sounds like a warped way of thinking.
I am not looking for a well-done at all. Just trying to be objective. Why can't you be the same.
What Utd Heap was trying to say, was that Harold Wilson was closing the mines whilst he was crying crocodile tears and saying sorry. What a load of tosh. He is just as bad as that scrote Scargill.
What mines? How big were they? How many mines were they to begin with? How many people did they employ?
Googling it:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftwatch/2013/04/wilson-closed-more-coal-mines-than-thatcher.html
So what we know from that is under Wilsons first premiership 45% of the mines that were open we he began, closed. Under his second premiership 12% of the mines that were open at the beginning of his second premiership, were closed. Overall in those 15 or so years 60% of the mines closed.
Under the thatcher years, 70% of the mines closed.
We need some actual data here, like the number of people employed by each mine for a start. Regardless, thatcher closed the mines at a far faster percentage rate than Wilson.
Just because you are in the middle doesn't mean you are objective.
You might want to scan the Crossman Diaries for an insider view of Labour's pit closures under Wilson. The NUM in those days was highly reticent to take on the government especially a Labour one, the feeling being that any Labour government was better than a Tory one. Crossman wrote:
"This whole business of pit closures, far more drastic than those proposed by the Tories, is one of the most embarassing duties our Government has assumed. And with some interest, I watch Fred Lee (Minister for Power) trying to grapple with it. Certainly he is handling the miners far more savagely than I would ever dare do".
"This whole business of pit closures, far more drastic than those proposed by the Tories, is one of the most embarassing duties our Government has assumed. And with some interest, I watch Fred Lee (Minister for Power) trying to grapple with it. Certainly he is handling the miners far more savagely than I would ever dare do".
That is far too simplistic a view, you know that.
There were no policies to counter the huge rises in unemployment particularly in the north of England, she cared about London and the finance sector, she knew that would boost the UK internationally and she was right.
Her ideology meant that's all she was arsed about, not if the loss of England's manufacturing and industry would decimate communities and organisations.
A Labour Govt of the time, would not have followed the same path of neglection IMO. Ofcourse there are no 'stats' to support that, because they were out of power until they sold out to the same viewpoint.
Are you deliberately being obtuse or is it normal? I will type it again slowly for you Eboue. I sit on the fence and it doesn't bother me who is in power to be honest. I dislike Thatcher, I disliked Blair, Obama, Callaghan, Major, Smith etc etc ad nauseum. However, when the statistics are presented, then you have to say that Thatcher was the lesser of the two evils.
@Rcoobc: When Wilson started closing the mines, there is a probably a fair chance that there were more people employed in each mine than in the Thatcher years.
Anyway, I'm out, it is past midnight here so, have a good one, one and all and happy debating.
Heap was right, you just want a well done. Frankly I don't care who you like or dislike but constantly bleating on about how objective you are is tedious. Everyone thinks they are objective or else they would change their views.Are you deliberately being obtuse or is it normal? I will type it again slowly for you Eboue. I sit on the fence and it doesn't bother me who is in power to be honest. I dislike Thatcher, I disliked Blair, Obama, Callaghan, Major, Smith etc etc ad nauseum. However, when the statistics are presented, then you have to say that Thatcher was the lesser of the two evils.
@Rcoobc: When Wilson started closing the mines, there is a probably a fair chance that there were more people employed in each mine than in the Thatcher years.
Anyway, I'm out, it is past midnight here so, have a good one, one and all and happy debating.
As a follow on, it's interesting to note the feelings of the then National President, Sid Ford, for whom Wilson could do no wrong:
"The Government has found it necessary to take steps (pit closures, mostly in Lancashire) which have made heavy demands on the loyalty of its supporters; as candid friends, we are entitled to criticise, but I make a distinction between legitimate criticism and malicious attacks designed not to help the Government but destroy it. There is no question of betrayal just because unpleasant decisions have to be made."
Joe Gormley, NUM leader in the 70s, was largely against militant tactics too but it bears thinking about what might have happened if the NUM, far stronger in the 60s, had adopted the strategies of Scargill's union of the 1980s.
"The Government has found it necessary to take steps (pit closures, mostly in Lancashire) which have made heavy demands on the loyalty of its supporters; as candid friends, we are entitled to criticise, but I make a distinction between legitimate criticism and malicious attacks designed not to help the Government but destroy it. There is no question of betrayal just because unpleasant decisions have to be made."
Joe Gormley, NUM leader in the 70s, was largely against militant tactics too but it bears thinking about what might have happened if the NUM, far stronger in the 60s, had adopted the strategies of Scargill's union of the 1980s.
Not wanting to be drawn into an argument that no-one will win but Thatcher actually dragged us into the first division of Europe.
Like I said, ALL Prime MInisters have bad policies.
Probably/maybe! I just hate stand-alone statistics.
What was unemployment when thatcher started, 5%?
I have some sympathy for, err, well no sympathy isn't the right word. But as more and more women entered the workforce during the 80's (and 70's, 60's, and 90's) you'd expect rising unemployment if not carefully managed.
But however many mines Wilson closed, at 4% unemployment those men probably found new jobs. Or maybe they died or left the UK, thats statistics for you. Mostly they probably found new jobs.
Hmm looking at that maybe not...
Her policy was to encourage entrepreneurs and stop zombie industries from sucking the treasury dry. Some of you anti-Thatcherites make me laugh because you think that the role of government is to provide jobs for the unemployed. That's utter nonsense. Government is meant to ensure that economic conditions allow for private enterprise to flourish and employ people themselves. We'd already had fifty years of nationalised industry providing jobs for the boys and operating inefficiently and costing the taxpayer a fortune. Heath tried to take them on as early as 72 but lost his nerve. Thatcher held hers and was ultimately proved right.
Your nonsense about the labour party of the time doesn't take into account the fact that they would have allowed the unions to dictate terms to them. It's a fundamental question of government...do you believe that an unelected group of unions should run economic policy or the democratically elected government? I know which one I think it should be.
You don't know just how far down the road to socialism Britain was in the 1970's. The unions had already brought down two successive governments so Thatcher knew that they had to be nullified if Britain was to emerge from economic ruin. Everybody knew unemployment would skyrocket but if she'd reversed the policy in the mid-80's it would all have been for nothing and we'd have been even worse off.
It's a definite problem when unqualified people, who can be emotional think they have the right to shape a country policy.
Happens all the time in India. The state where I live in (Tamil Nadu), want a separate state/country in Sri Lanka (a neighboring country) because people of our own race are in the minority there. It's a bit difficult to educate these guys that they can't force a foreign policy change by staging strikes and hunger strikes in a different country.
Happens all the time in India. The state where I live in (Tamil Nadu), want a separate state/country in Sri Lanka (a neighboring country) because people of our own race are in the minority there. It's a bit difficult to educate these guys that they can't force a foreign policy change by staging strikes and hunger strikes in a different country.
Err, I didn't mean to say that any one in particular is not qualified to make a judgement on Lady Thatcher. There are a lot of political analysts today who question her policies as well. I was just drawing a parallel to the situation at home, which is morally right and emotional, but just not achievable. Reading through all the posts, it seems her intentions were good, her idea was good as well, but the way she went about it, providing little relief in the transitional period is what makes her a villain of the piece.
Apparently, according to polls, 47% of the people think she was good and 42% think she was bad. Well, that's definitely not a class divide. It'll not be far off the mark to say she has her admirers on all classes, which is contrary to the opinion of anti thatcherites here. Well, she's gone and long may she rest in peace.
Apparently, according to polls, 47% of the people think she was good and 42% think she was bad. Well, that's definitely not a class divide. It'll not be far off the mark to say she has her admirers on all classes, which is contrary to the opinion of anti thatcherites here. Well, she's gone and long may she rest in peace.
It is true that the way Thatcher closed the pits was inexcusable but, what I remember of those days were the way scabs or strikebreakers were treated by their so-called colleagues or friends. Abused, beaten, threatened, ostracised from the local community, and all that because a man simply dares to work to put food on the table, to pay the bills and to keep a roof over his family's head. Imagine if Thatcher hadn't taken a hardline approach against the Unions, we'd still be in the dark ages.
Thatcher was better for miners, than the unions.
I've heard it all now.
I've heard it all now.
Imagine if Thatcher had gotten into power 10 years earlier. A lot of people would be working 60 plus hours a week, in shit & dangerous working conditions. & they'd be grateful for the few quid thrown their way every week by their rich bosses.
There's been some crap written about unions on this thread. Yes, they did become too omnipotent. But prior to that they improved the working conditions for millions of people in the UK. Employment laws that protect workers are now in place because of the sedulous work done by trade unions in the past.
The reason Thatcher is hated/disliked by so many isn't just down to her policies. It was her intransigent way of dealing with problematic challenges that didn't fit in with her ideology. She simply used her power to destroy them. It was as simple as that. Not the hallmark of a great leader in my book.
Too many on here seem to be getting bogged down with the closure of the mining industry. It wasn't just the miners who suffered. A lot of the industrial northern towns & cities paid a big price for Thatcher's vision of a so-called better Britain. As stated earlier on in this thread, the company I worked for up-rooted their thriving business to move down south during the Thatcher era. Just one of many I imagine. & just one of the many reasons why house prices rocketed down south. Truly great leaders make a positive difference to the vast majority of the people. There's no-one on here, or anywhere else, who can say that Margaret Thatcher did that.
That's a bit hard to take, considering she has 47% approval rating, and got elected thrice. I think retardman, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Well said.
Seconded.
Well, that's that sorted eh MuM?
And then in 2008 her polices cost the taxpayers billions.
Her policies and that of subsequent governments have led to a continuous boom-bust cycle in housing. Houses prices have gone from being 3-4 times the average wage to over 12 times the average wage in London for example. The average age of first time buyers is heading for 40. Then to top it all if you can even get a mortgage you live in a dog box as UK houses are the smallest in the developed world.
While Thatcher did some good she also done a lot of damage.
Yep - end of thread, I sayWell, that's that sorted eh MuM?
That can be said for every Prime Minister though.
Just so certain people in this thread can be absolutely clear on this, the problem with Thatcher isn't that she made hard choices, it was that for her they weren't hard.
Alright lads, wrap it up, Professor Grinner has ended centuries of debate on the role of government. Cheers Grinner, it took up far too much of our time.
They all are.
Great, wrap up every political thread in the caf so.
I know a lot of politicians I have up most respect for, that definitely aren't cnuts.
There are a lot of politicians that say well and mean well until they get the votes they want. No doubt there are politicians who are genuine but they are fewand far between.