|
10 Jan 03 - 05:41 AM (#863392) Subject: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Strupag I've just heard on the radio (Radio Scotland) that today is Maggie Thatcher day. I would like to thank her for inspiring that great folk chorus of the 80's which I often sang heartily. Maggie Maggie Maggie OUT OUT OUT! |
|
10 Jan 03 - 05:46 AM (#863394) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: sian, west wales Tell me you are joking. Please, tell me you are joking. sian |
|
10 Jan 03 - 05:47 AM (#863396) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: IanC Could I suggest April 1st? :-) |
|
10 Jan 03 - 05:53 AM (#863399) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Strupag No joke, It was stated on the Fred Macaully show on BBC Radio Scotland This morning that this is etc. (I casn't even bring myself to say it again). |
|
10 Jan 03 - 05:54 AM (#863400) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: harvey andrews Funeral? |
|
10 Jan 03 - 06:08 AM (#863405) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST Does she have a heart, she should just crawl under the stone that she came under The only way that we in Scotland anyway will be celbrating a Maggie Thacher day is the day that she dies. |
|
10 Jan 03 - 06:20 AM (#863407) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: stevetheORC Ah the Iron Lady, long may she live so that we have a constant reminder of the BAD OLD DAYS, and dont forget her protoge MR T B himself. One day we will have a day for him as well!!!! ORCS RULE OK |
|
10 Jan 03 - 06:52 AM (#863415) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: ced2 The only good thing about the Thatcher years was the occasion when she was booted out, by her own cronies, via an obvious knife in the back and it gave her some considerable pain! The worms had turned! Now that might be worth celebrating! |
|
10 Jan 03 - 06:57 AM (#863417) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,COCO I find it hard to believe anyone would want to have a "Maggie Thacher" day! She took everything from the people of (SCOTLAND}. Moved employment down to (ENGLAND). Our family were visiting reletives in SCOTLAND in 1999. I was at a house with my 2 kids and there was a quiz show on tv. The quiz master asked a contestent this ? 'What is Margeret Thachers middle name?' As quick as a flash even before anyone pressed their buzzer the 74yr old gentleman of the house answered SWINE!! My kids laughed even though only one knew what he meant and I agree with him. Its sad the way she treated the hard working people of Scotland also not forgeting the elederly people who had done their bit for the country. Only the ones who vote TORY will be pleased for her........ |
|
10 Jan 03 - 06:58 AM (#863421) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: DMcG My wife and daughter were in Budapest last year and had a tour round a nearby village. The guide spent the entire lunch break extolling Mrs Thatcher's virtues. Being British, my W & D did not point out that we do not all think she was the best PM we ever had. |
|
10 Jan 03 - 07:10 AM (#863425) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar I hope she remembered to invest all her savings in Enron in time for the crash. |
|
10 Jan 03 - 07:13 AM (#863426) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: banjomad (inactive) The late great Spike Milligan once remarked that Mrs Thatcher was doing a tour of all the lunatic asylums to personally thank the people thank who voted for her. The guy who decapitated her statue should have been honoured in the new year list. Why is it that any mention of her brings me out in a rage. Calming down now, Dave |
|
10 Jan 03 - 07:17 AM (#863431) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST No joke. 10th January is Margaret Thatcher Day in the Falkland Islands. |
|
10 Jan 03 - 07:21 AM (#863433) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST Aye and she started that war herself by sinking the belgrano. This was when she was in a slump with the voters |
|
10 Jan 03 - 07:49 AM (#863447) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Strupag I'm glad that this thread is bringing us back some memories which were glimpses of hope in a really bad time. One of my good memories is when, she was trying to get more popularity in Scotland, she attended the cup final. I was listening to the comentary on the radio and as Maggie came up to present the cup the supporters of both sided were giving a loud but slightly muffled chant. This came over on the radio a bit like this: "MAGGIE MAGGIE MAGGIE GET OO HUCK" You could almost hear the piss take in the commentator's voice when he said "The fans seem to be wishing Maggie the best of luck. |
|
10 Jan 03 - 09:56 AM (#863451) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Ralphie Does anyone remember the banned Private Eye cartoon, which figured the bust of Mrs Thatcher on a plinth in a graveyard surrounded by crosses.... The inscription was. "They died to save her face" I hope that P.E. doesn't have to reprint the cartoon in 6 Months time with a different head..... Oh What a lovely war Ralph |
|
10 Jan 03 - 09:58 AM (#863455) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,Shelly I can't get any clipit of what these sound like and I desperately want some Irish music. Can you help? lShelly qQuinn |
|
10 Jan 03 - 10:01 AM (#863456) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Ralphie GUEST Shelly.. You on the right thread....??? Ralphie |
|
10 Jan 03 - 11:24 AM (#863529) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST Whenever I'm singing The Drunken Sailor, I always throw in the verse "put him in bed with Margret Thatcher." Horrible thought, what? |
|
10 Jan 03 - 11:40 AM (#863542) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Les from Hull Please do not refer to that Thatcher woman as 'Maggie'. This was a trick by the Tory Press to make UK voters think that she was a nice person. Her name was (is) Margaret, and I don't think she liked being addressed personally as 'Maggie'. Of course the fact that my partner's name is Maggie has nothing at all to do with this tirade! |
|
10 Jan 03 - 12:02 PM (#863573) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,Claymore I realize that this response will set off major explosions amongst those who truely hate Lady Thatcher, and that as an American, it is somewhat inappropriate for me to comment without any real investment in Great Britain's internal strifes. That being acknowledged, and speaking only as a foreigner, in my opinion Lady Thatcher was a giant of her time. While those who suffered from her tough social policies may roar at her visage, they may not realize that Britain was brought back from the back-bench of the world stage, to a front row in what is now badly called the New World Order. Prior to her government being voted in, Britain was a social and financial basket case, listened to by no one, and a morass of socialized government services, which could not pay for themselves, and were bankrupting the government and the new young workers coming into the job market. Young and well-educated Britains were leaving their country at an incredible rate, not wishing to be burdened with what, to everyone, was a meltdown. Individual unions literaly Balkanized the country, striking whenever the mood struck them, and paralyzing the country and growth in the economy. At the same time Reagan was telling PATCO to go to hell, Maggie struck hard at the unions in her country, and together they brought order from chaos. Then together with the Polish Pope, and a Russian Party Secretary who could read a balance sheet, they fundamentally changed our world, with no loss of life in combat, on an order of magnitude we shall never see again. She did not start the Falklands War, as some dimwit has written. Galtiari (sp?) of Argentina occupied the unarmed islands for several months, while the UN and Britain tried to negotiate; to no avail. Since the Spanish-speaking twits of Argentina had unilateraly declared war on Britain, and Argentinian jets had aready attacked British ships, the Belgrano was a lesson to the big-mouth idiots who only thought war was parading around the Presidential Place in a comic opera uniform. The Argentinian Air Force earned international respect for pressing home the Exercet missle attacks on the British ships, (and the Western naval units quietly redesigned their shipping to take missle attacks, after BDA's disclosed fundamental flaws in ship designs of the period). But Lady Thatcher was firm, fair, and focused on insuring the self-determination of the islands, and it is no wonder that they are grateful. As to those who lost benefits, jobs or welfare entitlements, there is much hatred for the woman who pulled the money train to the side of the tracks and reordered the passenger list to pay for the costs of running the train. But literally every working person below the age of thirty should honor her unto the ages. If they read history at all, they will find out she literally saved her country and their future... |
|
10 Jan 03 - 12:05 PM (#863578) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Strupag I remember when the new pound was introduced, Kinnock suggested that it should be called a "Maggie" because it was Cheap looking, Brassie and had pretentions of becoming a sovereign. |
|
10 Jan 03 - 12:16 PM (#863583) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Dead Horse Thatcher was indeed a giant of her time. I spent all of that time wishing for a sling-shot, and that my name was David. But she did not sink the Belgrano, that was done by a hard metallic un-feeling cylindrical shaped object with an explosive warhead..........(come to think of it........) |
|
10 Jan 03 - 12:50 PM (#863613) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Cllr Obligatory post blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda I refer the honourable people of mudcat to the many previous threads covering the wonderfull Maggie. (She must be popular there are so many threads about her)Cllr |
|
10 Jan 03 - 01:02 PM (#863624) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Cluin What, did she just die? Is that why you're eulogizing the old dragon, Claymore? Yeah, and Adolf Hitler saved the world from the Great Depression too. |
|
10 Jan 03 - 01:29 PM (#863641) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Gareth Confusious - he say :- "When they errect statue of Thatcher, Time to give pidgeons laxative !" Gareth |
|
10 Jan 03 - 02:14 PM (#863690) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,Claymore No Cluin, I am not eulogizing her, as rumors of her death are greatly exagerated. I am simply trying to point out that, as DMcG mentioned earlier in this thread, she was well thought of, not only abroad, but in her own country. (Do remember that her party won something like seven elections in a row, so someone was listening). By the way, but somewhat on the point of the costs and burdens of Britains influence in the world, comes a quote today by member of the opposing party, currently in power: "I would never commit British troops to a war I thought was wrong or unnecessary. But the price of influence is that we do not leave the US to face the tricky issues alone. By tricky, I mean the ones which people wish wern't there, don't want to deal with, and, if I can put it a little perjoratively, know the US should confront, but want the luxury of criticizing them for it... " Tony Blair... |
|
10 Jan 03 - 03:16 PM (#863762) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Strupag Well It was bound to happen; Some Yank with a gaelic handle decides to educate us with his home spun philosophy about how our country was going down the drain etc. Well Claymore, I reckon she did start the Falklands war by sinking the Belgrano which was outside the exclusion zone and steaming further away from it. I agree the the agression was started by Galtieri, but this was in the background of the UK showing definate signs of withdrawing interest in the area. Why don't you read some of Tam Dalziell's writing on the subject. If thatcher was the saviour of our economic system, why has the rich in Britain got increasingly richer and the poor got poorer? This is a well proven fact and not a political statment. I remember the 60's and 70's well and we had a huge merchant fleet. We had coal mines that were being worked. We had a massive steel industry. Yes our strike record was a bit poor but the way foreward was the German example where both unions and managment sat down and decided together how their company should go foreward. Thatcher, instead, decided to smash the unions. As for your reference to Lech Wallenca, do you really think that he was a Thatcher supporter? As a merchant seaman during the 60's and 70's and have visited Russia, Romania, China and Poland, I take serious objection to any baffoon that suggests that the UK was in anyway similar to these countries. I often wondered if Thatcher was just another of your American plants like Pinochet in Chile. One thing that I do agree with you math thath "it is somewhat inappropriate for me to comment without any real investment in Great Britain's internal strifes" |
|
10 Jan 03 - 03:18 PM (#863766) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Strupag God Now he's quoting Blair! |
|
10 Jan 03 - 05:17 PM (#863863) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: banjomad (inactive) Hey listen Claymore, Thatcher sent British soldiers to their deaths to further her political career. She put thousands of British workers out of work as part of her governments policy. No words can describe the loathing British working people feel. Dave |
|
10 Jan 03 - 05:23 PM (#863870) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST but hey the british people were helped by being forced into greater poverty. |
|
10 Jan 03 - 05:26 PM (#863872) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: banjomad (inactive) fuckwit |
|
10 Jan 03 - 06:12 PM (#863905) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,Claymore Strupag, while I attempted to gently point out that yes, I was from across the seas (a fact that has not stopped numerous Brits, Europeans, etc from robustly condemming my country), history has a way of providing an overview that overcomes the prejudices of any of the numerous classes (working, labor unionists, upper, intelligencia, etc) whose interests in the final writing of history are still passionate in their minds. By your words you reveal that you were one of the very people that lost money, power and political position in the Thatcher (Realinement, Revolution, Retrenchment, ...pick one). Whatever your personal views, you have to admit that the country was bankrupt from social spending, and had to go on a diet. And this idea was very apparent to the majority of the country who voted for her in those elections. As for the German example, there are numerous signs that they are becoming the "sick man" of Europe. As for the Falklands war, if you can't admit that forcably landing on another country's soil, tearing down a flag of a country the inhabitants support to a man, and herding them into barracks two frigging months before the Belgrano went down, is an act of war, then I refuse to play with your hallucinations. Secondly, as one who has some knowledge of combat and amphibious operations, the Belgrano had to go. She was two days away, under the superior aircover of the landbased Argentine jets (Britian had one carrier with slower Harriers who had to divide their defense between task force coverage and ground support of combat troops - and almost lost doing just that). Considering that incredible lines of supply the British had to maintain, just to get to the Falklands, and the fact that the Belgrano's guns could reach to any part of the Falklands from the sea, I'd have sunk her at her moorings. And her sinking cut the guts out of the Argentine landing force, reducing their will to fight, which of course is extremely important if they are holding hostages. It was a brilliant move and saved many British lives (leaving the Argentine government to explain the loss of Argentine lives, which is as a loving God ordained it). And please note that I said the Polish Pope, not the (at that time) devested Polish Labor Leader, who incidently profusely thanked the Western nations by name and reference for supporting him in his hours of need. As to my handle, while I am of Northern Irish descent, it refers to (as the Websters II University Dictionary states ("a highly focused, commnd-detonated anti-personnel mine, used primarily to disembowel enemy attackers...) which I used to what I hope was great effect in Viet Nam. I flatter myself that it suits me... |
|
10 Jan 03 - 06:47 PM (#863930) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,sorefingers Claymore you just blew it! Never ever trust a nudger who loses his cool! While self employed folks sold their homes, they could not pay the bills the work was all dried up; while Maggie's numerous Pakistani business friends bought up the houses for nuttin - later to fill them( the Tory Government paying them well for the service - was this payback?) with the same folks who she threw out in the streets; while small business all over the UK closed their doors; while a generation of British kids flooded overseas via every exit they could find - it was so bad one year the postoffices were jammed to the doors with ques for passports; while decent industrialists were laughed at and sent packing because they were the wrong class, because they were Irish, Scot, Welsh, Brummie etc - they talked in a regional accent, because they were not public school boys, Oxbridge grads etc; while perfectly normal and healthy industries were scrapped all over the leinght and breadth of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, Maggie **** Thatcher and her American friends lined their pockets on short sell, asset stripping and the rest; did I leave something out? - oh yeah bloody John Major the freaking yank from Eton UK who felt such pain when he saw the grand old union falling apart, had to put a stop to it. |
|
10 Jan 03 - 06:49 PM (#863931) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Dead Horse The legacy goes on. She has us fighting amongst ourselves. Just point me at the nearest Argy Muslim Commie Gaulist rat. |
|
10 Jan 03 - 06:49 PM (#863932) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Strupag Why don't you register up as Cacmore |
|
10 Jan 03 - 06:49 PM (#863933) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,sorefingers North Irish my butt! Abu! |
|
10 Jan 03 - 07:23 PM (#863951) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,Claymore Great! We were having what passed for an intellectual debate and you go to ca ca humor? Well the Brits always did say that you could tell which class a person came from... and I guess it does eventually come out... And the most telling point against all your fulminations is this... that no government of Britian has yet to go back to the social systems she changed... They simply built on the prosperity that followed the hard medicine she made them take... Good Bye... |
|
10 Jan 03 - 07:46 PM (#863968) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Cluin Then maybe we should have a Brian Mulroney Day here in Canada. |
|
10 Jan 03 - 09:17 PM (#864038) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Strupag Cluin I always thought you were in Ireland. Anyway here in Skye, it's past midnight and a beautiful frosty clear evening. Apart from a rather uneducated claymore swinging facist bufoon it's been quite a good day. God I really believe that that guy was serious. Anyway, here it's now the 11th so I suppose it's now Sadam Day; As Zebidee in the Magic Roundabout said; Oichde Mhath old chap! Oh By the way, we now have a Scottish parliament - Bolshie lot! |
|
10 Jan 03 - 10:21 PM (#864077) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,I hate Thatcher Claymore just go back to that little planet that you live on with your Maggie Thatcher friends and leave the rest of us to live in the real world. |
|
10 Jan 03 - 10:39 PM (#864089) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,I hate Thatcher By the way I'm the 'dimwit' that wrote that she started the war in the Falklands. |
|
10 Jan 03 - 10:58 PM (#864102) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Strupag Hi I hate thatcher, I've got insomnomania due to that Facist gonk - to hear him being proud of using vile weapons of death in Vietnam makes me quite sick. If you are a dimwit then lets have more of your sage views. My whole idea of the thread was to have a laugh and think of the times when things were really bad, and that some of us kept our humour and our spirit. One more sentence before I retire; She bloody well did start the war in the Falklands. Good on the Archbishop of Canterbury, at the time , during the so called victory celebrations he had the guts to say. "There is no Victory - War in it self is a defeat" |
|
10 Jan 03 - 11:22 PM (#864124) Subject: RE: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Cluin Nope. I'm a Canuck. But I've been to Ireland. Scotland too. I have good friends from there that lived here for a time and then moved back. So I visited them. |
|
11 Jan 03 - 01:20 AM (#864161) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,I hate thatcher My other name that I sometimes use is Tam the Bam frae Scotland A Bam in Scotland is dimwit, nutcase, headbanger, idiot. And that's what I am. I'm told that I'm clever so I must be, but still that's what I'm sometimes called in Scotland, as for Thatcher I just hate the 'woman' That woman? should do us all a favour and just die. Mind you so do millions of others as well, so I'm not the only one that hates her. Before she came to power, there were Jobs in Britain, and after she left number 10 there weren't. She was just a greedy auld bitch that never cared for anyone. And so did her friends and voters. I just can't say enough how I loathe that bitch. I'll be glad that when she does die, she goes to hell, because that's what she left here in Britain. A HELL. I better not say to much in case I upset those Tories that have hearts, but mind you that will be hard to do, first you have to find one that has a heart. |
|
11 Jan 03 - 01:28 AM (#864165) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,I hate tatcher To those that say that thousands left, the reason was because of her, and then new labour came in and so the money greedy people left because they wanted to hold onto their ill gotten gains. These are the people that would sell their own grannys just to make money, they are that greedy. God I wish I never started now i jusr get so angry that I nearly bust a blood vessel. So I'll just go back into my room and calm down, and then start saying spells to get rid of her forever. So that's all I'm saying for just now Tam the Bam the Thatcher Hater |
|
11 Jan 03 - 04:39 AM (#864224) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Gareth I doubt if there is any person who laths Thatcher than myself, but of all her various crimes accusing her of deliberatley ordering the sinking the RANS "Gneral Belgrano" (Ex USS "Pheonix") is tosh. It was a Royal Navy decision from start to finish for the best opperational reasons. For those who insist that the "Belgrano" was sailing away and was not a legitimate target consider the following (loosly translated from the Spanish) "Helmsman - Turn the ship through 180 degrees." "Engine Room - Maximum speed." "Gunnery Officer - Open fire when we are in range." Somehow I can't see Halsey or Nimitz refraining from sinking an enemy cruiser in those circumstances. Gareth |
|
11 Jan 03 - 05:13 AM (#864230) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: banjomad (inactive) Claymore obviously ' studies war.' If the sinking of the Belgrano was purely a naval decision, why did all the government papers relating to it disappear ? Thatcher created a whole new philosophy in England ' Greed is Good ' and we are still suffering the consequences. Tony Blair seems to be one of ' Thatchers children ' Dave |
|
11 Jan 03 - 07:38 AM (#864289) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Cllr Some of us Brits supported Thatcher some of us still think she was a great Prime Minister, not all of us are arrogant enough to say our personally held view is the view of everyone in this country.Cllr |
|
11 Jan 03 - 08:10 AM (#864308) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: alanabit I hoped this thread would die quickly, but unforunatley it is still with us. We have done all this before. Margeret Thatcher would have to count as my least favourite Prime Minister of all time, but those who were here last time we did all this know that already. It is always gratifying to hurl abuse at politicians (or any other public figures whom we dislike). For better or for worse, the lady in question is now retired. Expressing my dislike would give me no satisfaction any more, as Lady Thatcher is now in her seventies and recovering from a stroke. I feel no temptation to put the boot in. Now let's hope that this unhappy (and useless) thread will just go away. Bye folks. Alan. |
|
11 Jan 03 - 10:43 AM (#864390) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: banjomad (inactive) RIP MRS T [ asap ] |
|
11 Jan 03 - 11:37 AM (#864432) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: ced2 Why Dave, should she RIP? If there was any justice in the world she would suffer, in exactly the same magnitude and order all the pain she gave to millions all over the world. And if this had to be eternal damnation so be. RIA (Rest In Agony) I say. Ced |
|
11 Jan 03 - 02:48 PM (#864596) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,Falklands Vet Well, you can't please all of the people all of the time. Ask the Kelpers what they think of Mrs T and ask the unions and unemployed what they think. Differing views. Instead of complaining why don't you stop whingeing and work towards a better future? As for me, I stand with Claymore, I don't believe he glorifies war at all but I'm fairly sure he does have real nightmares because of his experiences. Que sara Que sara |
|
11 Jan 03 - 04:04 PM (#864652) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Richard Bridge Claymore, I don't care what you think a claymore is. It is actually a traditional Scottish weapon. I am glad to hear Thatcher had a stroke. I enjoy it every time I hear it. I hope she suffers long dying. I hope she rots in hell for eternity thereafter. She destroyed the progress this country and the western world (possibly except America) were making towards civilisation, and towards reducing the gap between rich and poor. For selfish and doctrinaire reasons she made millions suffer so her few fair weather friends could benefit. She did no good and much harm. There may be others who have recently been more evil and malevolent than she. But not many. |
|
11 Jan 03 - 05:57 PM (#864734) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Greg F. I think "Claymore's" choice of his name is particularly apt- an American bastardization of a Scots term, mis-applied in the U.S. military's typically bombastic style (e.g., 'Hellfire' missile) to a particularly nasty version of anti-personnel mine-- an indiscriminate killer and maimer of friend and foe, military and civilian, women and children; a "weapon of mass destruction" banned by every country in the world with even a pretension to civilization- except the U.S. of A. Sounds just about right... |
|
11 Jan 03 - 06:43 PM (#864755) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: JudeL 1) the main reason her party stayed in power so long was not that people agreed with her policies but that her rich friends (who were getting richer) controlling the media ensured that the public were scaremongered out of returning a Labour govt , the Labour party then appeared to disagree internally about how to present itself to combat it's negative press and made the major mistake of dividing it's efforts by arguing internally instead of presenting a united front. 2) Whole areas of the country suffered massive unemployment because key industries were killed off. By shutting the mines in Wales, the pumping also stopped and as the water rose in the disused mines rivers started being poisoned by this. 3) We are now suffering a severe skills shortage because higher education has once more become something that you can only afford if you are rich. We used to have a system where most craft based employers took on apprentices, paid them an apprentice wage did some inhouse training and sent them on day release to the local technical college, and at the end of 3 or 5 years would take most of them on as permanent staff. Universities taught accademic subjects which were tax funded, students could concentrate on their subjects (lower drop out rates) and graduates were then available to enter professions such as teaching. Also because graduates tended to earn more they would be on a higher rate of tax and so pay more tax. The whole country benefitted by the investment in the workforce. Instead we now have very high vacancy rates, such that schools are trying to get teachers from abroad to plug the skills gap. 4) It was under the egg-snatcher that CCT was introduced. It has been proved repeatedly that handing the functions of local govt out to private contractors tends to end up costing more for a worse service, but govts of all persuasions are still buying into the lie that profiteering companies can magically make money without reducing the quality of the service. And this despite acknowledging that the quality of a service depends almost entirely upon the quality of the staff providing that service. If you don't pay them properly and you don't invest in their training do you really expect to get (and keep) quality staff? The phrase you pay peanuts you get monkeys comes to mind. 5) She engineered a change in our culture (controlling what is taught in schools and influencing media are very effective propaganda tools) away from collective responsibility and community values to self centred individualism. Made a virtue out of only looking after yourself and championed the idea that if someone has a problem, lost their job or are ill they must deserve it and are a "scrounger" and a "layabout" . This change in our culture now makes a virtue out of taking advantage of others. For these and many other reasons I believe she did my country great harm. No, I do not wish her dead, the dead have peace, instead I would wish that having lost all her money (in some enron type disaster) she ends her days being looked after in an underfunded externalised care home where the insufficient, inadequate, undertrained, staff are all temps who are on their first shift and treat her the same way they treat hundreds of other elderly people that she condemned to the "delights" of lowest bidder care. |
|
11 Jan 03 - 07:34 PM (#864794) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: harvey andrews Amen, Jude. |
|
12 Jan 03 - 12:45 AM (#864976) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,leeneia I don't know much about Thatcher, but I tend not to like what I have heard. However... In the past, the schools of the United Kingdom were the laughingstock of the western world, people died from breathing the air in London, the Thames was an open sewer, and unemployment and recessions prevailed for years. Yet the men who governed then have never been subject to the nastiness to which Thatcher is subjected. I don't think it's politics, I think it's jealousy. You are angry because a woman got to a high position. Worse yet, she was a woman and she didn't act like the national Mum! Isn't that it? |
|
12 Jan 03 - 01:31 AM (#864986) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,sorefingers Naw leenia, the real reason is that she did what the Labor Party had failed to do over the 50 years when they tried real hard, she demolished the Tory Party. :) |
|
12 Jan 03 - 01:47 AM (#864989) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Cluin Mulroney did the same thing to the Tories in Canada. With 2 terms as a majority government. |
|
12 Jan 03 - 04:52 AM (#865028) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: banjomad (inactive) For those of you unfamiliar with it check out Ewan MacColl's song '.The Grocer ' Thatchers political career in a nutshell. Dave |
|
12 Jan 03 - 06:22 AM (#865045) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: harvey andrews I don't think it's politics, I think it's jealousy. You are angry because a woman got to a high position. No,Leeneia. No.No.NO. "Privatisation revenues were used simply to boost spending...Neither North Sea oil revenues nor privatisation receipts were used for major capital projects or for industrial modernisation. In that sense all the Conservative administrations of the 1980's and 90's threw away two once-and-for-all bonuses on current comsumption, and this in a country with low levels of public and private investment by international standards....Mrs Thatcher's enthusiasm for nuclear weapons was excessive. She saddled Britain with the costs of the Trident missile...The expenditure on trident could have modernised the UK's rail network and the London Underground" "From Blitz to Blair" N. Tiratsoo.1997 |
|
12 Jan 03 - 03:40 PM (#865348) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: ced2 The comments from accross the pond about the greatness of Thatcher can only lead one to the inevitable conclusions about their time with old Ronnie Raygun. Either (a)he was much worse, or (b)he had such an influence on some Americans so as to make them even more gormless than he. One could easily conclude the latter was the case given the latest gormless sod to inhabit the White House. On the other hand perhaps it was both! |
|
13 Jan 03 - 05:29 AM (#865781) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Mr Red IanC I think April 1st is a bad day for MTD. May I respectfully suggest October 30th. We should all resolve to (appropriately) buy besoms and and make a clean sweep of politics on that day. Now the question, is Blair safe on a day like that? |
|
13 Jan 03 - 05:33 AM (#865784) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: banjomad (inactive) I think most americans do not understand the damage this woman did to a large section of English society. She used mass unemployment as a tool to hold down wages while her cronies were awarding themselves pay rises that would keep most people in luxury for the rest of their lives. Her paranoid hatred of the trade unions devastated two great British industrys. coal and steel, { withe the help of an American, Ian MacGregor , may he burn in hell ]. The money paid to MacGregor and the money spent fighting the miners was more than the cost of the miners wage claim. Don't call us jealous because we do not like this person who devastated the lives of many many ordinary British people. Dave |
|
13 Jan 03 - 08:11 AM (#865835) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: JudeL Leenia ... I am not angry because a woman got to a position of power, nor am I jealous of women, I am a woman and I believe in challenging the glass ceiling. I also beleve that Mrs Thatcher did the whole of womankind a dis-service and dealt equality issues a major set back because there were so few women who figured prominantly in politic those who were there started being seen as typical of what any woman in power would be like. It was not that she didn't act like a "national mum" it was that she acted like a self-centred, souless, ambitious, profiteering, short-sighted bully, putting the immediate needs of the few above both the the immediate and future needs of the rest of the country. |
|
13 Jan 03 - 08:35 AM (#865852) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: JudeL correction the immediate WANTS of a few |
|
13 Jan 03 - 08:57 AM (#865869) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Teribus To all of the lady's detractors who have vehmently posted above as to the ills she inflicted upon the United Kingdom, can you please refresh our memories with regard to how great things were before she took office, collectively your singular lack of reference to the deplorable state of the country during the 1970's may give non-UK readers the impression that there existed a Utopian paradise - I am of an age that I did live through it, the country was going to hell in high gear due to complete and utter irresponsibility on the part of government and the Trades Union movement. In making this illustration please provide details regarding industrial output (GDP and GNP), rates of inflation, percentage unemployment, growth, introduction of foreign investment, introduction of new industry. If you look at those statistics you will see a trend that indicates continued improvement from 1979 to the present day. As someone has pointed out above no sucessive government has ever attempted to reverse any of her policies. Quite a number of people posting to this thread mention the usual myths: 1) She did not start the Falklands War 2) Great British Industries - Coal and Steel. The Coal industry was costing the British Tax payer hundreds of millions of pounds a week, with a work force fully prepared to hold the country to ransom at the drop of a hat for the privelage of subsidising them in their "jobs for life". Reality check - you can buy something for £75 or alternatively you can pay £6 for the same item - which price would you pay? Steel - we made the wrong product at too high a price, at a time when world demand for steel was decreasing, it still is. 3) We should copy the German model - not so wise - take a look at what is happening to them now. What ever government is in power in Germany they will have to take on the Unions, just as Maggie had to. So she devastated the lives of many many ordinary British people did she? All those people thrown on the dole, consigned to the scrapheap - where are they? Britain has, and has had for some considerable time now, one of the lowest percentages of unemployed in Europe if not the world - so where are all of Maggie's victims? A comparison of Britain pre-1979 and now, I believe, would reveal a number of significant improvements - most of the ground work and the seeing through of some extremely tough decisions was down to Mrs T. She might not have got everything right - but you tell me anyone who ever has got everything right. In viewing the period, look at the facts, look at it objectively - too often all that comes out is selective, inaccurate, subjective hysteria. |
|
13 Jan 03 - 08:59 AM (#865873) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: fiddler I find it incredible that that woman can still engender such feeleings long after her political demise - which she truly deserved. As a Brit we got waht she promised - she stuck to her guns thru and thru she was just clever at phrasing it so it seemed good. She promised Victorian England (ie rich bluddy rich poor bluddy poor and heavily downtrodden) she didn't quite get the unions banned but she tried hard and the luddites nearly returned. Judging by the antics of her cabinet was she big on the international stage or was she performing similar antics internationally (no insinuations here just a question) - think big eh! Ronald R in America never seemed that bright even in his B movies (lets hit back shall we :-)) |
|
13 Jan 03 - 09:00 AM (#865874) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: fiddler PS to may lat post - and speaking of last posts Gualtierri died today! A |
|
13 Jan 03 - 09:11 AM (#865878) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: banjomad (inactive) Thatcher was the ultimate hypocrit, while hell bent on destroying the British trade union movement, she had the nerve to tell the Polish government that they MUST listen to Lech Walesa and the Polish unions, She was brought down by her friends which shows their true nature. She also did a Robin Hood in reverse ie. the Poll tax made the less well off subsidise the wealthy. Dave |
|
13 Jan 03 - 09:37 AM (#865892) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: JudeL One of the things she did was to change the basis upon which such things as unemployment are calculated and to exclude from the figures many who were previously included. She also removed the fair wages legislation, making poverty pay legal. If you are going to compare please try comparing like with like. I also lived through that age and in addition have studied the politics and labour relations of the time with the benefit of information which at the time was suppressed. Have you forgotten the effect of the 5 fold hike in oil prices and the effects that had. Also try remembering that the cost and benefits to a country of a major industry are different to individual shareholders. When you throw large numbers of people out of work it has a knock on effect on the whole community and increases the burden on the benefits system paid by those who have not yet lost their jobs, even if like MT you try to reduce the number of people claiming by removing eligibility from those in need. Oh and on the reversal of policies, we are still living with the after- effects of having a generation that was encouraged to think that believing in co-operation and community was weak and that selfish ambition was admirable by "there is no such thing as society" Thatcher and her highly effective propaganda. |
|
13 Jan 03 - 09:43 AM (#865895) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: ced2 With refenence to not starting the Falklands war, was it not one of her ministers who sent out a loud clear message about removing the pre war military cover and thus opened-up the opportunity for the Agrentinians to invade? I believe he then fell on his sword... His name was John Knott. And as for the coal dispute, we now import coal, mined by children in southern America, whilst having to pay grant costs to areas devestated by the closure of the coal fields. In addition should we ever need to get at the coal that is now locked-up underground because we are in need of basic fuels the costs associated with its recovery have increased tremendously. I think I was too generous when I suggested that RIP could be Rest In Pain. A more considered response would be "(w)Rithe in Pain! |
|
13 Jan 03 - 09:59 AM (#865901) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Bullfrog Jones Claymore doesn't have nightmares about the war, he has wet dreams --- see his posting from this thread about 'Friendly Fire': Norton1, some of my favorite people were Angels (ANGLICO) also known as "Squids on the Ground". I had one shoot the New Jersey into some bunkers south of Cua Viet in '69. Nine rounds and the whole ridge line collapsed... still gives me a woody. We should be grateful that Claymore and his buddies weren't helping out in the Falklands War. Just imagine how many more British troops would have died. BJ |
|
13 Jan 03 - 02:50 PM (#866100) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: banjomad (inactive) Another of her disastrous policies was ' care in the community ' which meant throwing mentally ill people out of hospitals with no care at all. This resulted in many innocent people being killed by mentally ill people who should have been in hospital. We could go on forever about her evil policies. Angry Dave |
|
13 Jan 03 - 05:09 PM (#866209) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,Claymore Since I can only get to the Mudcat when my works done, I just arrived after the weekend, only to find that while the cats away... So lets start straighting a few things out. Bulfrog, if you had half a clue about what you quoted, you would realize that you just blew the hell out of your cohorts comments about the Belgrano. ANGLICO stands for Air Naval Gunfire LIaison COmpany, and are naval officers or senior enlisted who are forward observers for naval gunfire (in this case the battleship, New Jersey). The use of naval gunfire is extremely important in an amphibious landing, but the British is the Falklands did not have a captial ship, due to the previous governments idiotcy, and the ground forces were forced to use close air support and landed artillery. The Belgrano would have caused two forms of havoc. By steaming directly towards the Falklands, she would have required the Brits to divide their already meager air power into three missions; ground support for the troops, air cover for the anchored fleet, and attack aircraft on the Belgrano. And when she arrived, she could have rained hell on Goose Green from any point of the compass around the Islands. Your limited mind obviously does not comprehend that the Argentines already had land based airpower, that eventually sunk three ships with Exercets, and that their French Mirages were more than a match for the Harrier (which is not an air superiority fighter but a close ground support plane). Now do try and pay attention: The Belgrano was a declared combatant, by it's own government the DAY IT SAILED, after the Argentines occupied the Islands, and herded the occupants/hostages into army concentration camps, and after Lady Thatcher had spent some three months working through the UN (which backed her actions, after the Argentines refused to negotiate) a point the BRIT TWITS refuse to acknowledge. I know that I've no chance in engaging in a battle of wits with a group of individuals who come to the match half-prepared, but I do hope that some of the other readers are able to catch some of the points being made. Now to quickly clean up some of the other intellectual stragglers. Greg F, I don't expect that you have a clue what you are talking about in mines, but the word COMMAND DETONATED means the mine does not indiscriminately kill women, children, yadayada, yammer, yammer, etc. It is set up temporarily above ground to cover trails, lines of attack, etc and is activated by a button attached to an electric detonator. It is never left behind, and is expressly permitted, and actually encouraged as a sane alternative, by the current UN Working Group on Anti Mining Treaty. And Greg, I don't mind insults, I just hate the really stupid, ignorant ones... As for studying war, somebody has to keep the twits away from the buttons. As for the lunacy that by not indicating a continuing interest in a piece of national property that has not been in dispute for over a hundred years, you have CAUSED a war when somebody forcibly occupies it; my question to the BRIT TWITS is this, any of you guys comtemplating a shot at Rhode Island?... Our government hasn't indicated a desire to fight for that particular state in my memory... As for coal and steel, they were dying morbiund industries in the States too, and went the same way, without Lady Thatcher's help. When you charge too much for the job you are doing, and your business doesn't make a profit, and is only held up by government subsidies, eventually you lose your job and your industry... Finally, I hope I do not bring fire down upon your head, but thanks Teribus... it takes two to recognize the truth... |
|
13 Jan 03 - 06:31 PM (#866241) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Greg F. Oh, please... and is activated by a button attached to an electric detonator and just as often set up to be detonated by a trip wire It is never left behind Oh, right you are. Sure. I believe you; thousands wouldn't. You're really quite good with that trowel aren't you? |
|
13 Jan 03 - 06:40 PM (#866247) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,Brit Twit Hey big mouth ... keep still |
|
13 Jan 03 - 07:29 PM (#866281) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST Good Lord! Who pissed in y'all's cornflakes this morning??? |
|
13 Jan 03 - 08:44 PM (#866331) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,Raedwulf Well, I can't say as I'm terribly impressed with half of what Claymore has said about the 'merits' of Milk Snatcher Thatcher ("egg-snatcher"? Where did that one come from?! *g*). I am, however impressed by the fact that he manages to keep his temper & keep to (what he believes are) facts, notwithstanding the ordure cast his way. Now if only the rest of you would refrain from puking your bile all over the board, perhaps there might be some small chance to enlighten him as to some of the real damage she did. So please do the rest of us a favour & quit with the pathetic insults, huh? As for those who are busy wishing pain & agony on the old cow, you really are sad, sick little bunnies. I can't stand the woman, & am of the opinion that the world would be a better place if she wasn't in it any more (less chance of her pontificating all over the place...). But wishing she dies (or lives) in agony? Some of you need help... |
|
13 Jan 03 - 10:23 PM (#866352) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,I hate thatcher Of course you got a job, it's because of her that so may people don't have Jobs. As wishing that she was dead, I just that she would just fade away and go into an old people's home, wait a minute she is it's the house of Lords. And imgine making her a lady, to become a lady you need to be human first. I just don't like the woman and what she and her party did to Britain. It will be a happy day when she is no longer with us. You might as well say that Hitler was a nice man, because he had the same ideas as Thatcher. I could go on but I won't as I said I just can't stand the woman. |
|
13 Jan 03 - 10:51 PM (#866379) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,I hate thatcher P.s the only thing that she never did was kill millions of people, however she did stop lots of folk getting jobs, she was in the decade of Greed and selfishness. She only cared about herself and no one else. And then you want me to like her, never. |
|
14 Jan 03 - 05:51 AM (#866515) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Bullfrog Jones Claymore, there's obviously a sharp brain at work there --- it's just a shame that it's encased in a head that's so far up your own arse that you can apply the word 'sane' to a landmine and entirely miss the point I was making that you get off on death and destruction. BJ |
|
14 Jan 03 - 06:48 AM (#866531) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: banjomad (inactive) Claymore, if Thatcher had made you redundant or made you pay poll tax to subsidise the wealthy, or one of those unfortunate care in the community patients had killed your daughter you would not be so ready to defend this vile person. Incidently why did all the British government papers relating to the General Belgrano mysteriously disappear ? Dave |
|
14 Jan 03 - 07:18 AM (#866547) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Nigel Parsons Banjomad: the idea of the Poll Tax was not to subsidise the wealthy, but to equalise the burden of cost. A wealthy person does not create more rubbish than a poor one, nor visit the library more often, nor require a greater standard of policing (and if they do they pay for it!), so the intention was for local taxes to be based on the number of people in a house, rather than the house's value. The idea that the rich should pay more because they have more would see multi-tier pricing for bus tickets by the same 'logic'. With the Poll Tax, the really poor could get subsidies and exemptions. It was the 'working classes' who were hit by the novel idea that everybody should pay at the same rate for the same services. Nigel |
|
14 Jan 03 - 08:01 AM (#866568) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: ced2 What a cartload of rubbish! The effects of the poll tax as a burden of local taxation have been publically documented. I know that in Bradford for example where there were 30 council wards the burden of taxation per household increased in varing degrees in 27 of the wards of the metropolitan district. In only 3 of the wards did it go down. It is no coincidence that those three wards were the most prosperous in the district. Two of the names I remember clearly, Ilkley & Baildon, both pleasent suburban districts with lots of top band housing (as determined by the current system), the third I can't recall. Of the other 27 wards it was, by and large, the poorest, either in terms of per capita or household income or the most needy, in terms deprivation indicies that suffered the most. I would find it amazing if this large North of England city and urban district was so untypical as to be the exact reverse of what happened nationally. As for the statement rich people do not create more rubbish than poor, for example look at the amount of packaging that comes with purchases of items other than basic food. The more one buys, the more waste there is from packaging alone... and the more money one has the more that one can buy. Libraries... another cloud cuckoo land statement. For at least 50 years it has been well documented that it is the middle & upper classes that use such council services the most. Poorer families have tended not to use these facilities... and before we start but I know of so and so there are of course personal exceptions. |
|
14 Jan 03 - 08:09 AM (#866575) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: JudeL sorry raedwolf, when I checked back *G* I realised for some unknown reason I'd managed to type "egg" and before you ask I have no idea why. BTW, High quality Welsh Anthracite was still in demand, the decision to close mines was not even based on cost benefit analysis (either short or long term) it was a political decision. I have no knowledge of the state of the mining industry in the US, whether it was dying or not , but the coal industry in Wales was deliberately killed off. |
|
14 Jan 03 - 08:32 AM (#866597) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Teribus Hi Banjomad, you ask: "..why did all the British government papers relating to the General Belgrano mysteriously disappear ?" Did they mysteriously disappear?? Or did they just disappear?? Or were they merely misplaced?? Or did they ever really exist?? I do know the guy who sank the Belgrano, maybe he can shed some light on the papers you refer to? Claymore's appreciation of the situation wrt the Belgrano and the potential threat posed is spot on - that was why she was sunk - the Belgrano's anti-submarine escorts ran for cover, Conqueror could have sunk them and the vessels that returned to pick up the Belgrano's survivors, they were left alone because they did not constitute anything like the threat posed by the Belgrano. And before anyone mentions how old and obsolete she was, consider the following. In the Pool of London visitors can look round a Second World War 6" gun Cruiser, HMS Belfast. In the late 1960's she was HMS Bellerophon, Flagship for the Royal Naval Reserve Fleet. She was initially saved from the scrappers yard by an arguement being put to the Ministry of Defence to retain her purely for Naval Gunfire Support. In terms of armament she was comparable to the Belgrano. As a Forward Observer you direct gunfire from ships offshore to specific land targets, while ranging in you correct the fire from one gun until it drops on the target, you then give the order to fire for effect and all the guns on the ship open fire on the selected target. Albeit Second World War hardware from the time the Forward Observer calls for fire for effect until the first 6" shell lands there are 120, 6" shells on their way that cannot be called back - extremely crude but very effective. The lunatic fringe (Tony Benn and Tam D) can argue semantics and niceties wrt the declared exclusion zone around the Falklands in 1982 till the cows come home, the stark reality was an undeniable need to remove the remotest possibilty of allowing that sort of fire-power to be directed against our troops and fleet. There was no politics in the decision to sink the Belgrano at all. |
|
14 Jan 03 - 08:53 AM (#866614) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: HuwG One second while I don the asbestos underwear ... OK. I recall being in uniform in 1982 when the Falklands Conflict started, and can recall the change of mood which everyone felt on hearing that the ARA "Belgrano" had been sunk. Up to this point, there had been barely half a dozen deaths and for all the sabre-rattling and mobilisation, it was possible to imagine that there might be some sort of face-saving settlement. After the sinking, there was no doubt that we were in real earnest. [I never went near the Falklands, though two of the people I had known in training were with the Task Force, and some of the radios with which we were to have been issued went as well, presumably on the "Atlantic Conveyor". Ooops !] It should not be forgotten that Maggie's bellicose stance over the Falklands was fully supported by the Labour party under lifelong peace campaigner Michael Foot; after decades of railing against militarism and authoritarianism, he suddenly found himself facing a reincarnation of Franco [Galtieri], and it would have been a paradoxical betrayal of his principles to oppose Maggie at that point. I always found Maggie's imposition of her own suburban prejudices on Britain to become increasingly dictatorial as time went on, and while I prefer not to join those howling for her public execution, I think it was unfortunate that she did not step down, or that a plausible alternative PM in the Conservative party did not challenge her, much sooner. Maggie probably suffered from a swollen head after 1982, if her reported words to George Bush Sr on the outbreak of the Gulf crisis in 1990 are true; "Now George, this is no time to get wobbly!" |
|
14 Jan 03 - 10:14 AM (#866678) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Gareth At last a return to sanity. She was evil / she is evil, and used class warfare. The one crime that that appalling woman is not guilty of is the sinking of the "Belgrano". Claymore may be miss informed about the British economy, but on the "Belgrano" afaire he is spot on. Gareth |
|
14 Jan 03 - 10:36 AM (#866696) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Nigel Parsons Ced2: I avoided using examples,or 'rubbishing' anyone elses comments. But you state the case most clearly: "What a cartload of rubbish! The effects of the poll tax as a burden of local taxation have been publically documented. I know that in Bradford for example where there were 30 council wards the burden of taxation per household increased in varing degrees in 27 of the wards of the metropolitan district. In only 3 of the wards did it go down. It is no coincidence that those three wards were the most prosperous in the district. Two of the names I remember clearly, Ilkley & Baildon, both pleasent suburban districts with lots of top band housing (as determined by the current system), the third I can't recall. Of the other 27 wards it was, by and large, the poorest, either in terms of per capita or household income or the most needy, in terms deprivation indicies that suffered the most. I would find it amazing if this large North of England city and urban district was so untypical as to be the exact reverse of what happened nationally. " To clarify that I have understood your comments; Prior to the implementation of poll tax, 10% of the wards were paying a higher per capita rate than the other 90%. Anyone at the 'well-off' end of the poor district, or just entering the higher stratum of the rich district will surely have wondered what extra services were provided by the council to justify a massive (perceived) hike in local rates caused merely by moving home. And it must have been a massive hike if a reduction for 10% of the community caused such hardship when spread out over the remaining 90% as an increase! Nigel |
|
14 Jan 03 - 01:19 PM (#866826) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,Raedwulf Nice to see the thread's got civilised again. :) I will disagree with Gareth though. She was not/is not "evil" - that's plain silly. The problem with that "appalling woman" (a description I *do* agree with! *g*) is that she was & is a narrow-minded ideologue, with no bloody imagination whatsoever. Ideology is all very well in theory, but when it's rigidly & unbendingly applied in practice it invariably turns out as a disaster. She was incapable of accepting that her policies weren't right & never had the wit to understand how much harm she was causing. A small-minded grocer's daughter, yes! Evil? Naaah! |
|
14 Jan 03 - 02:52 PM (#866875) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: banjomad (inactive) Raedwulf, it's just an anagram; vile, evil unfortunately live. Dave |
|
14 Jan 03 - 06:06 PM (#866967) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,Claymore Now bear with me for a second... In my first attempt to attach an article from todays Washington Times (A14) I do so because it gives a pretty clear second opinion on Lady Thatcher, and why the Unionists so hate her. What is interesting here is the theme of the emergence of the New Labor Party to occupy the vital center, and the very clear statement about the British voters opinion of Thatcher and Blair's adoption of it: (4th paragraph from the end, starting with "Blair perceived the obvious:). For the American reader it may open up a clearer sky to this mudfight, and give some perspective to some of the more vociferous comments made above. To some extent, I hear the last raging against the dying of the light. The question for the Leftist/Unionist/Socialist/Communist spectrum is not "Who won?" but how are you going to live with the peace? The below is submitted for your consideration... Tories facing uncertain future Arnold Beichman Is the Conservative Party of Benjamin Disraeli, Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher on the way out as one of the more durable British institutions? It would appear so, according to all political portents. How great a loss would the disappearance of the Conservative Party be not only to Great Britain but to our country? Not much of a loss at the moment. Prime Minister Tony Blair has as leader of the Labor Party moved this once ideology-bound organization to a center-left position over the protests of the ultra-left Trades Union Congress that once ran Labor, usually into the ground. Mr. Blair's two election triumphs in 1996 and 2001 have brought ruin to the Conservative Party. Once it was a party with a definable national constituency. Today it is little more than a regional party: just one Member of Parliament in Scotland, none in Wales and hardly any seats in urban England. Coming up fast in Britain's historic two-party system is the Liberal Democratic Party, which could replace the Tories as the Opposition. As for the effect on America of a vanished or vanishing Conservative Party, there is no stauncher ally in the war against terrorism than Labor Prime Minister Blair, 49, even though segments of his party, in and out of Parliament, abominate the historic "special relationship" between the two English-speaking democracies. Recall Mr. Blair's presence in the U.S. House of Representatives balcony when in the week after September 11, 2001, President Bush, addressing a joint session of Congress, noted that presence and inspired an ovation to Mr. Blair from the audience. Compare Mr. Blair's conduct with that of Canada's Prime Minister Jean Chretien, our neighbor to the north, who became the invisible man in the aftermath of the American tragedy. True, premature burial of the Conservative Party has been traditional in British political history. Disastrous Tory electoral results in 1906 and 1945 persuaded many that the party was finished for good. The gloomy prophesies were ludicrously wrong. The Tories in each case came back at succeeding elections and remained in power in election after election. The Tories won four elections in a row from 1979, three of them under the redoubtable Margaret Thatcher. What made for Tory success was that within the British electorate was a hidden force, the "Tory Worker," (his counterpart in America was called the "Reagan Democrat) who was a union member but not a Labor Party loyalist. The Tory Worker shunned the class warfare ideology expressed in the House of Commons by a Labor MP in an exultant cry, "We are the masters now," after his party's 1945 smashing victory. But they were not masters for long. Within six years, in 1951, this same Conservative Party, whose post-1945 election demise was widely predicted, returned to power with Churchill once more as prime minister. The Tory campaign strategy, an early version of "compassionate conservatism," was simple and it worked: the British public wants nationalization and the welfare state? Well and good, but it would be under Tory auspices. In short, the Tories "re-invented" themselves. Under Mr. Blair, the Labor Party has reinvented itself as the New Labor Party; so much so that when he refused to knuckle under to firefighter union wage demands last month, the Sun, the 3.3-million circulation British daily, headlined the event on Page One in a tribute to Margaret Thatcher as: "Blair does a Maggie." Simply put, Mr. Blair has won back the "Tory Worker" and with it a substantial part of the middle class. But more importantly, in today's New Labor Party there are no off-putting Labor MPs as there were after the 1945 elections like Aneurin Bevan, Emanuel Shinwell, Stafford Cripps, men who loathed their opponents. Bevan referred to the Tories as "lower than vermin." The old Labor Party was a divided, ideology-driven, ultra-left, union-dominated, Marxist-based organization over which Prime Minister Clement Attlee and his successors had no real control. The party's controlling elements — the left of the left — preferred to lose elections rather than give an inch on the socialist ideology. Mr. Blair has changed all that; whether for good, we shall have to wait and see. (Incredibly, he recently honored the still Stalinist historian, Eric Hobsbawm, by appointing him a Companion of Honor, a much-coveted British title.) Mr. Blair perceived the obvious: The British voter liked what Margaret Thatcher was doing, and it was not some passing mood. So Mr. Blair did in the '90s what the Tories had done in the '50s. Presently, Mr. Blair faces a serious Cabinet and constituency rebellion against his Iraq policy, according to the London Daily Telegraph. Whether he will be able to quell that rebellion remains to be seen. As for the Conservatives, despite their humiliating 1945 defeat, they still had credible spokesmen like Churchill, Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan, Iain Macleod, Reginald Maudling who won back the electorate in 1951 after the sour taste of Labor class warfare governing. Today the Conservatives have nobody who stands out as Mr. Blair's rival. The present leader, Iain Duncan Smith, 49, is leading a badly divided party, so divided in fact that he has just uttered a warning: "Unite or Die." As an example of division, Duncan Smith (or IDS, as he is known) says he is for tax cuts; his shadow chancellor, Michael Howard, is not. The Tory leader's future hinges on the local council elections in May. Should they turn out to be further defeats for the Conservatives, bye-bye, IDS. Perhaps the real problem is that, with the end of the Cold War, there is no big issue that divides the two parties. That means New Labor, as it is now called, will be Britain's governing party for a long time to come. Whether the Tories can survive so dismal a future is doubtful. Arnold Beichman, a Hoover Institution research fellow, is a columnist for the Washington Times. |
|
14 Jan 03 - 06:13 PM (#866971) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST I'm sure that if Mrs Thatcher had of been a Labour Prime Minister we would now be enjoying the benefits of a model NHS and superb education system. She would have taken on big business and removed its sting and probably nationalised all foreign enterprises in the UK. But as she was on the other side of the coin this is just speculation - I know that she had a strong personality/character which means a strong positive side and a strong negative side - when she got it right or wrong she stuck to her guns. I suspect that many in her Cabinet encouraged her to do what she did because they didn't have the balls/brassneck to do so themselves. Rest in peace. CD. |
|
14 Jan 03 - 09:00 PM (#867071) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: BusbitterfraeScotland Maggie Thatcher gave the order to sink the Belgrano, it was sailing away from the Falklands, it was no way near the Falkands, And these people who believe that that The Belgrano was not sunk by the order of Thatcher, must of been away on holiday in another country. Or else they are just Tories and Maggie Thatcher's ass lickers] |
|
15 Jan 03 - 04:31 AM (#867208) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: ced2 Clearly there is a problem with comprehension about the poll tax in simple words "The rich paid a much less and the poor paid a lot more." Its difficult to argue with facts. Incidentally it got so embarrassing that it was the next conservative leader that had to promise to get rid of the poll tax in order to win the 92 election! The admission, by the deed of axing it, by the puportrators of the poll tax is, at the end of the day, one of the clearest statements that it was ill-concieved if not downright wrong! |
|
15 Jan 03 - 05:33 AM (#867234) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Bullfrog Jones No arguments on that one, Claymore. Blair is Thatcher's bastard son. Those of us who lived through the Thatcher era despairing that we'd never again see a Socialist government are still despairing. Ever the pragmatist, Blair has simply tried to give Thatcher's policies a human face to attract the old-style Tories who loathed her as much as the Left did. BJ |
|
15 Jan 03 - 06:03 AM (#867245) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Teribus Ah Tam Ah Tam, re: your last: 1) "Maggie Thatcher gave the order to sink the Belgrano," Wrong ordered by Northwood, who strongly recommeded the sinking to the Cabinet - it was not Mrs T's decision. The "Rules of Engagement" governing the 200 mile Total Exclusion Zone were specifically altered to accommodate the threat posed by Argentinian Naval Task Forces TG78 (Aircraft Carrier 25th May) and TG79 (General Belgrano), the ammendments in force prior to the sinking of the Belgrano allowed submarines (Superb and Conqueror) to attack and sink those vessels outside the TEZ. 2) "...it was sailing away from the Falklands, it was no way near the Falkands," Totally irrelevant wrt "Rules of Engagement" in force at that time. The shooting war had already started, the ship had been evaluated as a major threat, while Conqueror was manouevring to engage Belgrano, "25th of May" was preparing to launch Skyhawk aircraft against the British Task Force (Launch abandoned due to lack of wind over her flight deck). To introduce what you say above clearly demonstrates that you have absolutely no knowledge of naval operations, capabilities and tactics. 3) "And these people who believe that that The Belgrano was not sunk by the order of Thatcher, must of been away on holiday in another country." The situation had been evaluated long before the event, the assessment as to whether or not to sink the General Belgrano was taken by Naval command, they passed that assessment and recommendations to the Cabinet (Not to the Prime Minister alone) who collectively agreed that the course of action recommended was the one to adopt. The order to sink the Belgrano was issued through RN chain of command from Northwood, in all probability copied to Woodward in command of the Task Force at sea. 4) "Or else they are just Tories and Maggie Thatcher's ass lickers]" Alternatively they may be people who are prepared to read up on the incident and form an objective opinion on what was going on and why things were done the way they were. The Leftist view that Mrs T went to war to win the next election was only ever voiced after the event with the advantage of 20 x 20 hindsight. At the time very few believed that what was achieved could be done - not surprising - we were bloody lucky, at no time whatsoever was the outcome a foregone conclusion - had the Argentinian Air Staff been better at arithmetic - we would have lost. |
|
15 Jan 03 - 08:25 AM (#867317) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Nigel Parsons Ced2: No argument about the lack of comprehension of the poll tax, it is your interpretation that suffers. "The rich paid a much less and the poor paid a lot more." This claim, together with your claim that "The rich" made up 10% of Bradford & "the poor" 90% cannot be made to tally. The fact that the poll tax was scrapped is not an admission that it was "ill-concieved if not downright wrong", merely that it had been shown to be unpopular with a large percentage of the populace. This is not surprising if your claim that 90% were worse off because of it. But, it does not make the basis of the poll tax wrong. Removal of the poll tax ( a fair and equitable charge upon each person as a share of commonly received services ) reduced the income of local councils. As a result we see local rates (the charge on houses based on size and locality) increasing, and support by central government requiring the raising of additional funds by other means. Tony Blair promised 'no increase in basic rate taxation' and so has had to increase nearly every other form of fund raising available to him. This means that we are now taxed at a much higher percentage rate, whilst the 'basic rate income tax' has not increased. Nigel |
|
15 Jan 03 - 08:37 AM (#867332) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Bullfrog Jones Good one, Teribus -- that joke about the cabinet collectively agreeing! ROTFLMAO (as I believe the geeks would say). BJ |
|
15 Jan 03 - 03:08 PM (#867671) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
15 Jan 03 - 06:39 PM (#867842) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,Kimberlin (On a guest log-in) 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!! |
|
15 Jan 03 - 08:10 PM (#867895) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,Claymore 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... |
|
15 Jan 03 - 08:38 PM (#867909) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
15 Jan 03 - 11:59 PM (#868004) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher has Distemper! From: GUEST,sorefingers 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. |
|
16 Jan 03 - 05:13 AM (#868100) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: ced2 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 |
|
16 Jan 03 - 06:43 AM (#868150) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,Teribus 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. |
|
16 Jan 03 - 08:15 AM (#868209) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: harvey andrews 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 |
|
16 Jan 03 - 08:19 AM (#868212) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Nigel Parsons 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 |
|
16 Jan 03 - 08:40 AM (#868228) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,Teribus 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. |
|
16 Jan 03 - 08:58 AM (#868242) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,Kimberlin 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!! |
|
16 Jan 03 - 09:13 AM (#868251) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Nigel Parsons 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 |
|
16 Jan 03 - 09:27 AM (#868259) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: banjomad (inactive) 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 |
|
16 Jan 03 - 09:27 AM (#868261) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,Claymore 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... |
|
16 Jan 03 - 11:40 AM (#868393) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: JudeL 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. |
|
16 Jan 03 - 12:00 PM (#868412) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,Raedwulf 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* |
|
17 Jan 03 - 12:31 PM (#868786) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,Claymore 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. |
|
17 Jan 03 - 12:45 PM (#868811) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: McGrath of Harlow 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." |
|
17 Jan 03 - 12:56 PM (#868832) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: Songster Bob 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. |
|
17 Jan 03 - 01:47 PM (#868912) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: McGrath of Harlow That's be for Dagenham. |
|
17 Jan 03 - 03:05 PM (#868963) Subject: RE: BS: Maggie Thatcher Day From: GUEST,Raedwulf 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*) |