BS: Maggie Thatcher Day

Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day
From: Bullfrog Jones
Date: 15 Jan 03 - 08:37 AM

Good one, Teribus -- that joke about the cabinet collectively agreeing! ROTFLMAO (as I believe the geeks would say).

BJ

Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jan 03 - 03:08 PM

And this idea was very apparent to the majority of the country who voted for her in those elections.

In no election did Thatcher's party ever get a majority of the votes. The people voting against her split their votes between Labour and Liberal or Social Democrat. That's how it works.

I think it's important to remember that. The blame for those years doesn't lie with Thatcher, it lies with the people who voted for her, and that's why it's important to remember that most people never did and never would have.

I agree that "I hate Maggie" is a waste of time - it diverts attention from her disciples who wormed their way to control the Labour Party. It even makes them look good.

For me I see the Thatcher period as a catastrophe. I don't mean that it cost me money - if anything, as a social worker, the problems she brought ensured that there was never any shortage of work. But I remember the way that for year in year out you'd turn on the radio and there were these oily politicians sneering and smug and a constant diet of hate and selfishness and worship of power and money. It corrupted everything, and worst of all it corrupted a whole generation of young people.

And it corrupted the Labour Party as well, which I am afraid is Thatcher's most enduring legacy. So maybe the Tories might never win another election - so what? It's like the scene you get in Vampire films sometimes, right at the end. The Vampire is dead, with a spike through the heart. But as the credits start to roll the one who killed it looks into the camera, and you realise that he's become a Vampire himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day
From: GUEST,Kimberlin (On a guest log-in)
Date: 15 Jan 03 - 06:39 PM

Let's cut the bullshit and stick to facts -

Mrs Thatcher's politics were evil in that she had the knack, through being a right winger, of taking a genuine problem and always picking the policy that benefited the few at the expense of the majority.

Mrs Thatcher will probably go down in history as one of Britain's most successful Prime Minster's in terms of actually delivering the policies she set. Many think they were terribly wrong, as I did then and still do, but she did acheive them.

It is easy to forget because the main legacy of the Thatcher years is the massive shift to the right in British politics that the last "socialist" PM was actually a member of the Tory party, namely Edward Heath. His politics of then, brought forward to today, would be far to the left of New Labour (New Tories).

Pre "her!!" even Tories believed in the taxation doctrine of "from each according to his ability to pay to each according to his need" they only argued over the size of the slice. All flat fee taxation systems (of which VAT is the worst) hit the poorer end of the social spectrum harder than the richer end and are basically evil when levied on essential necessities - Thatcher was an advocate of this new style tax.

If labour rates in western europe due to fair wage legislation, health and safety rights etc were high she should have campaigned to bring about improvements in that legislation worldwide. But no - lets cut all those rights, encourage unbridled capitalism, remove all restraints on trade, even the sensible one's, and drive down the British unit cost of labour. She sowed and nurtured the seeds of greed on a worldwide basis.

Not due Mrs T alone I know but the thoughts set in train in the late 1980s by highly influential people like her sparked the reactions that ultimately lead to the terrorist attack on 11 September. They have lead to a lost generation of kids with no hope, they have lead to a greed and drug culture.

Need I go on - that woman at the time personified everything that is wrong with untamed free market economics - aaaarrgghhhh

I am no commie, just a middle of the road bloke with ethics sick to death of the greedy "stuff you jack" culture that is Mrs T's legacy to Britain and the world. There was quite a lot wrong with Britain then but unfortunately the so called solution has not cured many of those issues. It merely changed them and brought in even more new ones - hindsight shows we did throw out many babies with the bathwater!!

Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 15 Jan 03 - 08:10 PM

It is indeed a new world, stepped away from government paternalism or any other "ism" except Capitalism. Taken from the long view, it had to happen; no modern country has the youthful workforce to support the gentler times some of us came to view as our birthright.

As many of even my coarsest critics have allowed, the educated youth of Britain were leaving in droves during that period - who was going to earn enough to pay the bills? It had to change. It hurt some very badly; you can read between the lines and hear of their anger, hurt and fear. But the youth are now staying, and have an investment in the future.

And those who would legislate "fair labor wages" do not understand, that with the speed of computers, the flash of cargo planes, and "Just in Time" inventories, those jobs will be in some jungle country we still can't land troops in, or hardly pronounce. The only thing that absolutely has to happen in your presence right now are the Last Rites, and a blow-job. Everything else is subject to negotiation over time, distance, or market shares.

It had to change, not for the rich, 'cause they could always leave, but for the poor who had to stay. How many British citizens who became rich stayed as citizens during that period? Hell, if you remember back, the only thing that out-numbered British ex-pats were American draft-dogers.

But as I first wrote above, not one government that followed her brought any of it back, and, even as some now are willing to move on, I do believe history will be kinder to her than those who still hurt...

Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jan 03 - 08:38 PM

A nightmare future if it goes that way...

It doesn't have to be like that, and that's the hope to cling on to. Indeed it's a different world, but it doesn't have to be a worse world. But saving it from becoming a worse world isn't going to be achieved by the likes of Thatcher and her admirers.

Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher has Distemper!
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 15 Jan 03 - 11:59 PM

Claymore I hope you can Box, the Irish were always handy that way including so it appears the North Irish - whothehellever they are -,
but seriously complaining about the Thatcher emigree is one thing on the Internet but in person ... naw nobody could be that stupid, there again maybe not.

In the days of Warmouthmaggie about the Harrier you know zich; besides really running rings around all kinds of missiles the lil devil could outfly everything from a Mig to a F something.

Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day
From: ced2
Date: 16 Jan 03 - 05:13 AM

I did not mention 10% or 90% moleworth, your basic mathematics is wrong, it has about as much rigour as a fart in a gale, you can't extrapolate the statement I made in that way. What does please me is the way that you seem to be saying that taking form the poor in order to give to the rich is good. On that may the judgement rest..RIA

Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 16 Jan 03 - 06:43 AM

Sorry Sorefingers, it's you as knows zilch about the Harrier. Claymore has got a far better handle on it. There were two types of Harrier used during the Falklands War, the Fleet Air Arm's Sea Harriers and those flown by the RAF. The RAF Harrier's were GR variants (Ground Attack/Close Support), the Sea Harriers were the only aircraft on our side that were air-to-air combat capable, being equipped with Sea Fox radar. The only reason they were successful against the Argentinian Mirage's was because the Mirages stayed sub-sonic. True enough the Harrier is manouevreable, but it has tremedous difficulty in getting into a firing position against a super-sonic target. The Harrier's "succes" against missiles (predominently heat seeking missiles) is down to it's design - it has four vectored exhaust nozzles, instead of one or two fixed exhausts, therefore it's heat signature is more diffused and harder for a missile to acquire.

In an earlier posting I made a comment about the Argentinian Air Staff not being good at artihmetic. At the start of the conflict the Argentinian Air Force had 35 Mirage Fighters, the Fleet Air arm had 20 Sea Harriers. Those twenty aircraft were tasked with combat air patrols to protect the Task Force and to provide defensive air cover for the troops onshore. If the Argentinian Air Staff had recognised this weakness, they should have said to their Mirage pilots, fly out sub-sonic, as soon as you encounter Sea Harriers go to full reheat, the Harrier then cannot touch you, then shoot down one Sea Harrier, I know you don't have enough fuel to get back to the mainland, so bail out over east Falkland and we will fly you back. All it would have taken for Woodward to withdraw Sea Harrier cover from the land forces would have been the loss of three or four of his Sea Harriers. That would then have given the Argentinian Air Force complete air superiority over the Falklands.

Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day
From: harvey andrews
Date: 16 Jan 03 - 08:15 AM

Actually Claymore over 60% of young British people would like to emigrate and leave the country Thatcher created and Blair is continuing to destroy. I wrote a song in 1965 called "One machine" about people having to be selected for kidney treatment. Here we are all those years later and they are still dying for lack of machines. Fewer are treated in britain than anywhere in Europe. We never invested back into our basic structures, we only ever took out profit or paid for military adventures. We're doing the same under this govt. How many kidney patients would have a decent life for the cost of one missile we'll fire in the Gulf?
Anyway, funny you should bring up emigration as I've just finished a song "Sons and daughters"

Sons and daughters leaving
Going far away
See them sadly waving
Wishing they could stay
All they see about them
Darkness and decay
Sons and daughters leaving
Going far away

Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Jan 03 - 08:19 AM

Ced2: Quite right. you did not mention 90% & 10%, you mentioned 27/30 council wards and 3/30 council wards. The idea that each ward is roughly equal in the number of voters it includes allows me to translate this as percentages.
I was not suggesting that taking from the poor to give to the rich was good, merely that redistribution of wealth by means of biased taxation is not necessarily a good thing.
If argument fails descend to a slanging match! Good ploy that.

Guest,Kimberlin: VAT is not a good example of a flat fee taxation system. VAT is charged at standardised rates on most items (and at its top rate on luxury goods). However, it is charged at a percentage rate, thus the more you spend (or can afford to spend) the greater will be your payment in taxation. Clearly not a 'flat fee'

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 16 Jan 03 - 08:40 AM

And for all that this country has been screwed up - it still remains to be the first choice for the vast majority of asylum seekers entering Europe. They want to come to Britain - not France, not Germany. The reason is that in Britain their prospects are better.

Harvey have you written a song about immigration into the UK. As for people emmigrating to leave, "The country that Thatcher created" arrant nonsense, people leave one place to go to another for a whole raft of reasons - the "I'm all right Jack, pull up the ladder" culture was well established in Britain long before Maggie came on the scene.

Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day
From: GUEST,Kimberlin
Date: 16 Jan 03 - 08:58 AM

VAT is a very good example of a flat rate tax that is unavoidable and forms a more significant tax burden on the poor/lower paid. Unlike other taxes it cannot be avoided either by clever accountancy tricks. (avoidance is fully legal - evasion is the crime) )

There are certain low rate or zero/exempt rate items but not all essentials are in these categories so it is not a tax you can totally avoid. If you are on a low income you still have to pay the 17.5% tax on many items and get no "de-minimus" credit allowance against earnings as you would do if all the funds were raised through income tax alone. Even taking account of those lower rated and untaxed amounts still means that a low income family is being taxed on a base rate of say 10% (estimated) on all their income. That then creates a need to pay credits and allowances over and above.

The government constantly tells it is taking more and more people out of taxation but it is at best a half-truth as yes they take them out of income tax but merely claw it back through loads of the other flat rate taxes instead which hit the lower paid harder than income tax and leaves the better off with more disposable income.   

True the very rich still only pay the same rate of VAT but because they earn more the amount remaining is significantly greater. I would need to check it but as you are paying a lower percentage on more I think the growth in what you have left over untaxed becomes geometric not linear. The old cannon of taxation that I quoted of ability to pay goes out of the window totally. Some of the comments above are so close to fascism they make anyone with any decency cringe to think there are people out there who genuinely believe what they have written and even more so that they are mudcatters!

If you are male (as I am) and think VAT is not levied on essentials ask a woman what she thinks are essential purchases every month then see if they are taxed!!

Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Jan 03 - 09:13 AM

Kimberlin: I still feel that describing VAT as a 'flat fee' is wrong. Those with more disposable wealth will pay more VAT than those with less. Calculationg the effect of VAT by the amount of disposable income which you retain seems a biased argument. The poor are unlikely to retain any 'disposable wealth'.
As you say, It is all a way for the government to raise more through taxation.
A better example of a direct 'Tax on wealth' is the sudden increase in the rate of 'Stamp Duty' paid on real estate purchases of £250,000 or more. If stamp duty is a valid concept, why should it jump from 1% for properties from £60,000 to £249,999, to a figure of 3% for properties of £250,000 +. Clearly the government are getting an increased income for the more expensive properties merely by the fact that Stamp Duty is charged as a percentage.

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day
From: banjomad (inactive)
Date: 16 Jan 03 - 09:27 AM

It's no good arguing with each other, a sensible conclusion will never be reached. The facts are, a whole generation, I call them Thatchers children have grown up believing that greed is good and that total selfishness is right, this is her legacy.
I no longer hate her, I pity her, La Belle Dame Sans Merci, a woman who is a mother, so lacking in human kindness and so indifferent to other peoples suffering.
Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 16 Jan 03 - 09:27 AM

Thanks Teribus.

Sorefingers, as a former US Marine Corps Officer and a graduate of the Amphibious Warefare School at Quantico, I do know a little about the Harrier, since it is one of the few foreign-built weapons platforms in the US arsenal, and those Harriers are only in the Marine Corps. We know a good thing when we see it, and we infantry tell them to "Come Back with Grass Stains on your Wings". Now that's close air support.

As for boxing, I was in the Nam in 68-69 ( a Platoon Cmdr in the same Company with Oliver North - I was 1st, he was 2nd Plt Cmdr, Kilo Co. 3/3/3). Later I did 18 years in police work, medically retired as a Lt. Now I never could stop them from taking a swing at me... but I did break them of the habit...

Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day
From: JudeL
Date: 16 Jan 03 - 11:40 AM

Claymore: you say that no government has repealed any part of her policies, being as you are not from the UK it may be that you are not aware of the changes in direction of the devolved parts of government viz the scotish and welsh assemblies . Their powers may be limited but in those areas in which they have a choice the move away from selfish "rob the poor and needy" policies is marked. The english govt ignored the conclusions of a white paper recommending free at point of us elderly care, they made an artificial divide into nursing (that which could only be provided by a state registered nurse) and personal ( assistance to wash, dress, eat, have a pee, transfer from bed to commode etc) then further decided that only the nursing care element would be paid by the state, the rest... well you worked your whole life you must have some assets that can be sold! The result ... in England, private care home (where most end up since most direct provision has been a victim of ill-concieved "CCT" or "BV" legislation) raised their fees by the extra amount paid out. Who benefitted - the owners of the care homes, who lost - everyone who needs a service or pays tax.. In Scotland they decided to implement it properly and support their elderly people in care. A socialist policy.. but wait a minute Claymore you said no-one supports true socialist policies . There are similar more socialist variations to English policy happening in Wales. There are signs of change, they are limited cos it takes a long time to get a generation to wake up and start thinking for themselves instead of accepting the media brainwashing of self-centred attitudes that were promoted (and still are being promoted) under Thatcher.

Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day
From: GUEST,Raedwulf
Date: 16 Jan 03 - 12:00 PM

Interesting points, Jude. Being English & hating politics anyway, I tend to miss stuff like that. I must however take you task over one tiny typo - "The english govt..." Indeed? Since *WHEN*???!!!

"UK govt", thank you, still stuffed full of welsh, scottish & Ulster MPs! Not that I've ever been a fan, particularly, of devolution, but if it's right for those parts of the country, why is it not right for England? And if their MPs retain a full say in English affirs, via Westminster, why do English MPs only have a limited say (i.e. not over bits covered by devolution) over them? Hardly fair, but another argument entirely, of course! *g*

Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 17 Jan 03 - 12:31 PM

JudeL, while I was aware of the Scottish and Welsh assemblies, I was not aware that they are attempting to modify some of the original Thatcher policies, however my comparison was government to government and my point still valid. And by the way, I never said no one supports true socialist policies, only that the governments that followed Thatcher did not (as was the point in the article I attached).

We in the US have states which vary considerably in their approach to social issues, but at the end of the day they have to tax and spend to pay for those differences. That those types of issues can now be dealt with on a regional basis, and paid for on the same level, is one of the finer points in a democracy, and may approach socialism with a small "s", as long as the bill does not come due to some future generation, and then only to that region.

The point is not the benefit, it is the bill...

But thanks for pointing it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jan 03 - 12:45 PM

We've spent a lot of words on her - but Mike Harding expressed very neatly what lies behind and beneath the politics of it all, and it really explains the contempt and dislike that is felt for her:

"The kind of lady who wouldn't let you have your ball back."

Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day
From: Songster Bob
Date: 17 Jan 03 - 12:56 PM

My British friends tell me that one name they use for Ms. Thatcher was "Daggers," because, on the underground, the station for "Daggers" is "two stops past Barking." I don't know what actual station names are involved here, but the punning is obvious.*

Bob Clayton


* If it's not, then think "barking mad" and you'll see what's intended.

Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jan 03 - 01:47 PM

That's be for Dagenham.

Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day
From: GUEST,Raedwulf
Date: 17 Jan 03 - 03:05 PM

That'll be Dagenham *Heathway*. Just for the sake of accuracy, y'unnerstan' *g* (Followed by Dag. East, if anyone cares, which I doubt! *g*)