It was 25 years ago today.... (Thatcher)

[Gnarf]

I dun really know too much 'bout Thatcher, but if you come to power, there's probably something wrong with you.

25 years is pretty old for a current event, methinks.

[Donut]

14% Unemployment
15% Interest rates
10's of thousands of properties reposessed
British manufacturing decimated
Two huge depressions during her reign of terror

[ 05-07-2004, 06:07 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]

[wellard]

Originally posted by Donut: Two huge depressions during her reign of terror

I just thought it was one long depression


Reading her biography, a telling sign of her lack of humanity was the fact she talked about the huge unemployment problem twice IIRC and only then about the stubborn numbers proving difficult to reduce. Not one comment about the pain or destruction of whole towns that this caused

[General Nosaj]

Ruining the health servive and other gavernment controled sectors haunts Britain today and the clear up has been far more expensive than "money saving" measures that have caused the problems.

[Gab]

I think she was horrible. She was an utter bitch to the poor and treated them like crap. She took over most government controlled properties. Only the very conservative would like her.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Gab: I think she was horrible. She was an utter bitch to the poor and treated them like crap. She took over most government controlled properties. Only the very conservative would like her.

I have to take issue with a few of those...

She did do several things for the poor, most notably allowing people to buy their (often rather nice) council houses at discounted rates.

She didn't take over most government controlled properties, she sold most loss-making government industries (although with varying degrees of success it has to said). If i've misunderstood what you meant by properties, please elaborate.

And I think Britain would be a much worse place now without having her, and i definitely wouldn't consider myself 'very conservative'. We got over the unemployment, she laid good macroeconomic foundations which have stood us in good stead. Tony Blair admitted that for the first 2 years of his government he basically left the economy completely as he was given it (whilst claiming all the credit of course).

The reason for the massive unemployment was the previous Labour government making a bit of a hash of the economy - Thatcher had to bring in a monetarist regime as a condition from the International Monetary Fund. The rest of the unemployment came from the heavily unionised sectors which employed far too many people (from an efficiency point of view that is).

Inflation was sky high, so interest rates had to be slapped up to bring it under control. Yes it was painful, but a comparison can be drawn to amputating a limb to stop you dying of gangrene. The economy would simply not be competitive now if she hadn't whittled it down to size.

[ 05-07-2004, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: I have to take issue with a few of those... She did do several things for the poor, most notably allowing people to buy their (often rather nice) council houses at discounted rates.

Yes, in order to buy their votes. And the result?
The housing stock for poor people was *SEVERELY REDUCED* and councils were forbidden from reinvesting the money gained from the 'giveaway' in rebuilding more homes - which led to the CHRONIC housing shortage and high rents of today..

She didn't take over most government controlled properties, she sold most loss-making government industries (although with varying degrees of success it has to said). If i've misunderstood what you meant by properties, please elaborate.

She did not sell a SINGLE nationalised company that was not making a *massive* profit at the time of sale (ie British Airways, British Telecom, British Steel). And she sold them for peanuts - again in order to buy votes.

The reason for the massive unemployment was the previous Labour government making a bit of a hash of the economy - Thatcher had to bring in a monetarist regime as a condition from the International Monetary Fund. The rest of the unemployment came from the heavily unionised sectors which employed far too many people (from an efficiency point of view that is).

No, the reason for the massive unemployment was the accelerated 'rationalisation' process that Thatcher undertook. It was neccessary (true) but implemented on a scale and speed that was both harsh and caused unneccessary suffering.

Thatcher did a lot for the economy - and Britain is still reaping the benefits. But she did a hell of a lot of bad things too. She ruined entire communities and gave away the nation's wealth to buy votes...

Let's be honest about this.

[Gab]

Okay, maybe I misrepresented my facts, but I hate the way she treated by cutting welfare and there have been many Briton (including Prince Charles) who disliked how she treted the poor. She also tried to end much of the socialism in Britain, you cannot deny that.

However, I'm not British so I don't everything that she did. Most of people here don't like her. Donut even call her years of being prime minister as a reign of terror.

[Barry the Sprout]

Thatcher letting the poor buy the council houses was a very calculated move on her part. Homeowners tend to vote conservative more, its as simple as that. And the side effects of this? We now don't have enough council houses... a great victory for the free market!

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by shamrock_uk: I have to take issue with a few of those... She did do several things for the poor, most notably allowing people to buy their (often rather nice) council houses at discounted rates.

Yes, in order to buy their votes. And the result?
The housing stock for poor people was *SEVERELY REDUCED* and councils were forbidden from reinvesting the money gained from the 'giveaway' in rebuilding more homes - which led to the CHRONIC housing shortage and high rents of today..

She didn't take over most government controlled properties, she sold most loss-making government industries (although with varying degrees of success it has to said). If i've misunderstood what you meant by properties, please elaborate.

She did not sell a SINGLE nationalised company that was not making a *massive* profit at the time of sale (ie British Airways, British Telecom, British Steel). And she sold them for peanuts - again in order to buy votes.

The reason for the massive unemployment was the previous Labour government making a bit of a hash of the economy - Thatcher had to bring in a monetarist regime as a condition from the International Monetary Fund. The rest of the unemployment came from the heavily unionised sectors which employed far too many people (from an efficiency point of view that is).

No, the reason for the massive unemployment was the accelerated 'rationalisation' process that Thatcher undertook. It was neccessary (true) but implemented on a scale and speed that was both harsh and caused unneccessary suffering.

Thatcher did a lot for the economy - and Britain is still reaping the benefits. But she did a hell of a lot of bad things too. She ruined entire communities and gave away the nation's wealth to buy votes...

Let's be honest about this. [/QUOTE]Absolutely, i've made no bones about her permiership having a lot of pain in it. I'll take issue with one of your examples though, BT has never been making money to the best of my knowledge. Also, whilst the speed of economic changes undoubtedly made the situation worse, and taking over during a recession definitely didn't help, would the alternative of dragging out these changes over time be any more desirable in the long-run?

The council housing shortage now stemmed largely from two factors I thought - the transfer of control to Housing Associations (done with the best intentions at the time, returning control to the people that used them, although they have proved to be fairly incompetent i would say) and also the demographic change, the fact that so many people are now living on their own who didn't used to be. The figures are suprisingly high for that. Also immigration and asylum does have a significant impact upon council housing, although admitedly not as much as the Daily Mail would have us believe.

I'm quite willing to be corrected on any of those points but for one. In all the mental images I have of Mrs. Thatcher, I never thought of her as being a 'vote grabber'. I would suggest that she was indifferent to a point. She was almost on her way out until the Falklands War saved her and that carried her for a few years. Surely someone who designed their policies in order to acheive votes wouldn't have had the balls to push through the unpopular policies that she did?