Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Ex-Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher dies


Daughter of the Nine Moons
 Share

Recommended Posts

FYI: I'm a Northerner and, although I wasn't around then, so are my parents. The above is a rehash of what they have said today. Also, those saying she destroyed the North East: No, she didn't. She destroyed the power of the unions who were striking without ballots and prevents us ever having another 3 day week. She then negotiated the Nissan contract for the NE which employs more people, in more sustainable, safer and ethically sound jobs than they ever had in the mining industry.

Um, sorry, say again, over? How is working for a Japanese mega-corporation, the profits from which of course all go straight to tokyo, more sustainable and ethically sound than mining coal to supply British industry or building ships for the British merchant navy? You know how much energy is consumed in the act of Car manufacture and the amount of CO2 produced, to say nothing of the fossil fuel consumed and the Co2 produced by those cars, and all the resulting damage that's caused by them? How on earth is it more sustainable and ethically sound?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, sorry, say again, over? How is working for a Japanese mega-corporation, the profits from which of course all go straight to tokyo, more sustainable and ethically sound than mining coal to supply British industry or building ships for the British merchant navy? You know how much energy is consumed in the act of Car manufacture and the amount of CO2 produced, to say nothing of the fossil fuel consumed and the Co2 produced by those cars, and all the resulting damage that's caused by them? How on earth is it more sustainable and ethically sound?

Because profitable plants equals stable employment for it's employees. How profitable were the pits in the 30 yrs between '65 and when the last one was privatised in '95?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because profitable plants equals stable employment for it's employees. How profitable were the pits in the 30 yrs between '65 and when the last one was privatised in '95?

it should not be all about profits, certainly not all about profits for capitalist fat cats. It should be about self sufficiency and providing what's important to enable the country to run without having to buy every essential commodity or product from other countries, or making profits for these other countries. If it should be about making profits at all, these profits should go to the people who help to generate them. No one believes that capitalists are primarily concerned about making profits so that they can improve the conditions for their employees, are they?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it should not be all about profits, certainly not all about profits for capitalist fat cats. It should be about self sufficiency and providing what's important to enable the country to run without having to buy every essential commodity or product from other countries, or making profits for these other countries. If it should be about making profits at all, these profits should go to the people who help to generate them. No one believes that capitalists are primarily concerned about making profits so that they can improve the conditions for their employees, are they?

Ok i'll word it slightly differently - how is a non-profitable business making you self sufficient? You say it's important to enable the country to run without buying every essential commodity from other countries! I agree....however, we took our eye off the ball long before Thatcher started putting the final nail in certain coffins (no pun intended).....we went from leading the world in things like the motor industry, to not even getting a look in! That's not down to one government, that down to many many issues, from the arrogance of the unions, lack of quality in production, lack of investment in new technologies going back half a century etc...

Propping up non-profitable business simply because they are British is bad business, not sustainable, and bad economics...

We should go back to what we we good at - heavy industry....we won't do that, but we should...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I make no apologies for my utter disdain for her,to put it politely.

Nor would I expect you to. But, as I said, time to celebrate was when she left power. I have nothing but disdain for anyone who celebrates an old lady's death.

You didn't read my post did you? If you had, you'd know she didn't make the North a 'wasteland' as you think. Trouble is, you only hear about the minority who weren't happy because they suddenly lost the chance to strike whenever they felt like it, crippling the country every time.

of course, she was a Politician. The whole talent and skill of Politicians lies (appropriate word there) in the ability to be clever in argument and be devious with words.

People are trying to vilify her? Surely that's no more than any Politician deserves; politicians are, i think it's fairly safe to say, the most harmful profession ever devised by humanity. Anyone who wants to be a Poltician (by which I mean who wants power and to have control over people, as distinct from those constituency MPs who do genuinely want to represent the interests if the people who vote for them), I'm afraid, automatically forfeits any right to respect simply for being a Politician, since the're declaring, very openly and nakedly, that all they want is Power.

And if her policies led to lasting harm and virtually destroyed the nation's ability to be self sufficient, and to have to depend on virtually everything by buying it from often questionable foreign regimes, this is frankly very near to treason, and so are surely still very much open to criticism.

Criticism, yes. That's what politics is all about. Celebrating her death? Not so much.

Um, sorry, say again, over? How is working for a Japanese mega-corporation, the profits from which of course all go straight to tokyo, more sustainable and ethically sound than mining coal to supply British industry or building ships for the British merchant navy? You know how much energy is consumed in the act of Car manufacture and the amount of CO2 produced, to say nothing of the fossil fuel consumed and the Co2 produced by those cars, and all the resulting damage that's caused by them? How on earth is it more sustainable and ethically sound?

More sustainable: cars don't run out. Coal does.

More ethically sound: how many people die in car factories?

As an environmental geoscience graduate, yes, I know quite a bit about the energy used in producing those cars and burning fossil fuels. Have to laugh at your post though, you are aware that coal is a fossil fuel? And a much worse one than oil.

Sadly, you don't seem to realise that there is more than one meaning to 'sustainable'. It's only been coined as a 'green' thing recently. Find a dictionary, and come back.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be that one of the curses God put on Adam and Eve was to supply the world with so much coal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an economy its not really sensible to run down the domestic manufacturing industry and then expect foreign companies to come in an take up the slack.

The economy as a whole is impoverished by this approach - even if a few thousand people end up getting a wage packet at the end of each week.

Not a sustainable economic model.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More sustainable: cars don't run out. Coal does.

More ethically sound: how many people die in car factories?

As an environmental geoscience graduate, yes, I know quite a bit about the energy used in producing those cars and burning fossil fuels. Have to laugh at your post though, you are aware that coal is a fossil fuel? And a much worse one than oil.

Sadly, you don't seem to realise that there is more than one meaning to 'sustainable'. It's only been coined as a 'green' thing recently. Find a dictionary, and come back.

Do you have a badge saying "I'm an enviromental geoscience graduate, therefore I have superior knowledge to you"? Anyway, I wasn't even talking primarily about coal mining, actually. And if you're trying to tell me than turning out hundreds of thousands of cars for a foreign owned megacorporation is in some way environmentally and ethically sound, then I'm afraid your patronising laughing at me will be well and truly drowned out by my laughing at you.

Edited by Colonel Rhuairidh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an economy its not really sensible to run down the domestic manufacturing industry and then expect foreign companies to come in an take up the slack.

The economy as a whole is impoverished by this approach - even if a few thousand people end up getting a wage packet at the end of each week.

Not a sustainable economic model.

Br Cornelius

Neither is sustaining failing industry - all but a few of the coal mines were running at losses, our car industry went down the pan because we didn't move with the times and made appauling cars. If an industry is succesful, making good quality products, it doesn't matter what the government of the day thinks of it, it'll stand on it's own feet and make profit....governments can only be blamed for so much when it comes to industries failing, those within those industries (who stood at the helm during the colapse) need to look at themselves too....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither is sustaining failing industry - all but a few of the coal mines were running at losses, our car industry went down the pan because we didn't move with the times and made appauling cars. If an industry is succesful, making good quality products, it doesn't matter what the government of the day thinks of it, it'll stand on it's own feet and make profit....governments can only be blamed for so much when it comes to industries failing, those within those industries (who stood at the helm during the colapse) need to look at themselves too....

It produced the wrong types of intervention. Again look at Germany to see how to get it right.

We could and should be in the same economic position as Germany at this moment - but we made far to many bad choices along the way. For me the period of Thatcher represents the worst period of bad choices because she used a sledge hammer to crack a nut.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raegan (and there are so much more than this - just look at U.S. foreign policy from his reign and go 'tick, tick, tick'): supplying Saddam with WMDs (chemical and biological weapons), which were used against the Iranians (as he no doubt knew would be the case) would be the first example I would use. But most importantly, in my opinion, supporting, arming, funding, training and directing the terrorists that devastated Nicaragua - to this day the country has not recovered - killing and raping tens of thousands of people. In fact, if the U.S. had not used their own UN VETO, then he actually would have been convicted of war crimes. But, yeah, basically any dictator, corrupt government or terrorist that his government armed, trained, funded or otherwise supported could have seen him at the Hague.

Thatcher: much the same to be honest. It's a case of take your pick. Every single Prime Minister since the late 60s should be tried for allowing the U.S. to continue to inhabit the Chagos Islands - an act which resulted in thousands of Her Majesty's subjects being ethnically cleansed (war crime) to actual slums. Then there is the '86 bombing of Libya, support of Saddam's war against Iran, open support of the racist South African regime.

Which ever way you look at it, both could and should have been tried for war crimes. And by the same standards of law, so could every other British or U.S. leader since WW2, even the much loved Kennedy. Our combined foreign policies - designed to fill the pockets of the elite of our countries to the detriment of peasants around the world - have been disgusting.

One of the best posts I've read on UM.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a badge saying "I'm an enviromental geoscience graduate, therefore I have superior knowledge to you"? Anyway, I wasn't even talking primarily about coal mining, actually. And if you're trying to tell me than turning out hundreds of thousands of cars for a foreign owned megacorporation is in some way environmentally and ethically sound, then I'm afraid your patronising laughing at me will be well and truly drowned out by my laughing at you.

No, I have a certificate. I've never said my knowledge is superior to yours. I know nothing about you so couldn't make that judgement. You asked if I knew something, I answered. It's called conversation.

And I wasn't saying anything about the environment. That was your misunderstanding of the word sustainable. Whether you want to accept it or not, building cars for a foreign company is more ethically sound than sending people into mines to die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been look at pro Thatcher comments across the Net and on facebook.The fact that she took on the Unions does not make her the greatest prime minister ever.

Edited by shaddow134
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it should not be all about profits, certainly not all about profits for capitalist fat cats. It should be about self sufficiency and providing what's important to enable the country to run without having to buy every essential commodity or product from other countries, or making profits for these other countries. If it should be about making profits at all, these profits should go to the people who help to generate them. No one believes that capitalists are primarily concerned about making profits so that they can improve the conditions for their employees, are they?

Have you heard yourself? The mining and manufacturing industries were making no profit they were existing on government subsidies and being protected with trade tarrifs. Britains economy grew rapidly once they were dumped and we became a properous services based nation. If you want to feel angry you should feel angry at the socialists who let such a monsterous state owned bubble exist to the point that when we realised it had to pop it put several million in the dole queues.

'Fat cats' as you call them have turned loss making organisations into billion £ corporations and as such rightfully deserve their £1 million + annual bonuses. You need to dump your negativity towards the rich. Directors, senior managers and share holders are big on corporate social responsibility as a businesses success is dependant on how it manages its relationship with its stakeholders.

With the amount of major corporations out there its only a small percentage engaged in corrupt behaviour. Bearing in mind the psychology behind what drives such corrupt behaviour I think you'll find its because they let your kind into their boardrooms. The type who think business and getting somewhere in life is about cheating everyone. Yet another reason why we should bring back grammar schools and limit university places to those from the right background.

Edited by Giant Killer B
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you heard yourself? The mining and manufacturing industries were making no profit they were existing on government subsidies and being protected with trade tarrifs. Britains economy grew rapidly once they were dumped and we became a properous services based nation. If you want to feel angry you should feel angry at the socialists who let such a monsterous state owned bubble exist to the point that when we realised it had to pop it put several million in the dole queues.

'Fat cats' as you call them have turned loss making organisations into billion £ corporations and as such rightfully deserve their £1 million + annual bonuses. You need to dump your negativity towards the rich. Directors, senior managers and share holders are big on corporate social responsibility as a businesses success is dependant on how it manages its relationship with its stakeholders.

With the amount of major corporations out there its only a small percentage engaged in corrupt behaviour. Bearing in mind the psychology behind what drives such corrupt behaviour I think you'll find its because they let your kind into their boardrooms. The type who think business and getting somewhere in life is about cheating everyone. Yet another reason why we should bring back grammar schools and limit university places to those from the right background.

Nicely put. I love how so many people hate the rich but don't seem to realise that they or their families worked damn hard to earn that money.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicely put. I love how so many people hate the rich but don't seem to realise that they or their families worked damn hard to earn that money.

I can safely bet that very few of the rich you mention would have worked even half as hard as a coal miner, bricklayer's labourer (or brickie for that matter), roadworker, groundworker or any number of physically demanding jobs. Working hard is waking up with your muscles killing you from the day before, and going home so tired you can skip dinner and sleep right through to the next day. Anyone can put in hours at an office, but not everyone (or anyone) can handle actual hard work. Very few millionaires will actually have a clue what it is like to work hard.

There is an astoundingly huge disparity between work and reward throughout the working sector. And I honestly don't believe for a second that someone who puts in 40-70 hours a week in an office deserves even half the pay of someone putting in the same hours on a hard-going building site. But then this is the joy of capitalism. Keep the wee man down.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO the legacy of Blair Brown & Nu Labour has done far more lasting (& irreparable) damage to this country than Thatcher ever did & frankly the rabid left are starting to sound rather shrill & somewhat embarrassing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO the legacy of Blair Brown & Nu Labour has done far more lasting (& irreparable) damage to this country than Thatcher ever did & frankly the rabid left are starting to sound rather shrill & somewhat embarrassing.

None of it would have happened without her setting the ball in motion. They were just working with an unsustainable growth model which could only blow up in their faces. They were actually in surplus for most of their term in office - but that was an illusion based on the unsustainable growth bubble Margaret set in motion.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can safely bet that very few of the rich you mention would have worked even half as hard as a coal miner, bricklayer's labourer (or brickie for that matter), roadworker, groundworker or any number of physically demanding jobs. Working hard is waking up with your muscles killing you from the day before, and going home so tired you can skip dinner and sleep right through to the next day. Anyone can put in hours at an office, but not everyone (or anyone) can handle actual hard work. Very few millionaires will actually have a clue what it is like to work hard.

There is an astoundingly huge disparity between work and reward throughout the working sector. And I honestly don't believe for a second that someone who puts in 40-70 hours a week in an office deserves even half the pay of someone putting in the same hours on a hard-going building site. But then this is the joy of capitalism. Keep the wee man down.

Sorry Ex, but that really does come across as the politics of envy. Ever stopped to think that perhaps the person in the office actually studied hard at school, got good grades, went to college or perhaps university & endevoured no matter what to enter the career they strived for.

I'm 50 years of age & the biggest pain in the **** in my classroom while at school, & the guy that made the teachers life an absolute misery & who is obviously the same age as me is a window cleaner and has been since he left school & he knocks on my door every friday night for his £3.50. He had exactly the same choices & chances as me, but he chose not to take them. Me working in an office & him cleaning windows has got nothing to do with 'keeping the wee man down' but everything to do with what choices you make in life.

Edited by itsnotoutthere
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of it would have happened without her setting the ball in motion. They were just working with an unsustainable growth model which could only blow up in their faces. They were actually in surplus for most of their term in office - but that was an illusion based on the unsustainable growth bubble Margaret set in motion.

Br Cornelius

And what was it exactly that she put 'in motion' that was impossible for thirteen years of labour to reverse?

The only government policy that I can think of that is irreversable, the policy that has kept the working mans wages low, the policy that has resulted in a shortage of housing, a policy that has resulted in overcrowded schools & a policy that has tested the NHS to breaking strain is the policy of unrestricted immigration, and we all know who set that particular ball in motion.

Edited by itsnotoutthere
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New labour was Thatcherism with a new suit. They had no intention of changing a single one of her macro policies. You only have to listen to Tony Blair to understand that.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can safely bet that very few of the rich you mention would have worked even half as hard as a coal miner, bricklayer's labourer (or brickie for that matter), roadworker, groundworker or any number of physically demanding jobs. Working hard is waking up with your muscles killing you from the day before, and going home so tired you can skip dinner and sleep right through to the next day. Anyone can put in hours at an office, but not everyone (or anyone) can handle actual hard work. Very few millionaires will actually have a clue what it is like to work hard.

There is an astoundingly huge disparity between work and reward throughout the working sector. And I honestly don't believe for a second that someone who puts in 40-70 hours a week in an office deserves even half the pay of someone putting in the same hours on a hard-going building site. But then this is the joy of capitalism. Keep the wee man down.

I'm not having a dig at you specifically here...but I do kind of resent the idea that physical work is not the same as mentally challenging work...it's somehow harder to do physical work. I chose to do physical work, I could have gone to work in an office, perfectly capable of learning new skills or applying my brain to any area I chose....I chose to do physical work simply because I like getting my hands dirty, I like building things, dismantling things...seeing my days work in front of me when I finish. I can't stand being stuck in an office (soul destroying for me)....I trained as a bricky when I first left school, then moved into warehousing and forklift work as the recession of the early nineties hit...i've been in engineering, and now transport...I love it, I love a days proper work (not insulting office workers there)...i'm not better or more deserving because my muscles ache at the end of the day....similarly I don't look at office workers with envy, I feel sorry for them as I hated it....

Not all of us manual workers are looking at others thinking "if only"....brickies, sparkies, groundworkers etc....we earn good money when we want too ;)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been look at pro Thatcher comments across the Net and on facebook.The fact that she took on the Unions does not make her the greatest prime minister ever.

She done a lot more than take on the Unions. if you take the situation as it existed back in the day the UK was on a massive decline, and the government was not even managing it. just look at the economy, we was ranked second to bottom of western countries in terms of productivity and investment. due to industrial disputes. the Socialist trade Unions striking at the drop of a hat. trade unions holding the country to ransom. nationalised industry operating at huge losses. subsidised heavily by the tax payer. the situation simply could not continue. we was facing economic collapse. just read the government papers which were released and now available on the national archives website the cabinet papers make the most interesting reading. make no mistake about it, we was in the most serious of situations, you think the economic situation today is bad. we'll thats nothing of the situation in 1975.

I was brought up to disagree with Thatcher and her politics. but once i started reading into events i came to understand her policies and the more i read and understood the situation the more i admire her for the tough actions she took politically across the board. one of the most controversial policies was - she thought the price of 3 million unemployed was a price worth paying for the benefit of the Nation as a whole and history tells us she was right.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can safely bet that very few of the rich you mention would have worked even half as hard as a coal miner, bricklayer's labourer (or brickie for that matter), roadworker, groundworker or any number of physically demanding jobs. Working hard is waking up with your muscles killing you from the day before, and going home so tired you can skip dinner and sleep right through to the next day. Anyone can put in hours at an office, but not everyone (or anyone) can handle actual hard work. Very few millionaires will actually have a clue what it is like to work hard.

There is an astoundingly huge disparity between work and reward throughout the working sector. And I honestly don't believe for a second that someone who puts in 40-70 hours a week in an office deserves even half the pay of someone putting in the same hours on a hard-going building site. But then this is the joy of capitalism. Keep the wee man down.

Probably because we live in an age where intelligence is prized above brute strength. As itsnotouthere has said, they worked hard to get where they are and made sensible choices. The majority of manual labourers chose not too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Ex, but that really does come across as the politics of envy. Ever stopped to think that perhaps the person in the office actually studied hard at school, got good grades, went to college or perhaps university & endevoured no matter what to enter the career they strived for.

I'm 50 years of age & the biggest pain in the **** in my classroom while at school, & the guy that made the teachers life an absulte misery & who is obviously the same age as me is a window cleaner and has been since he left school. He had exactly the same choices & chances as me, but he chose not to take them. Me working in an office & him cleaning windows has got nothing to do with 'keeping the wee man down'

I can understand why you might think that but you're talking to someone who was a milkboy that also worked in the dairy from the age of 14 (extremely hard work), then became a roadworker straight from school (16) for over half a decade (going on to work in building sites on and off for years) - and now I'm doing a degree in software development, because there's just no comparison between hard labour and office work. No comparison between mentally draining work and physically draining work.

Unless someone is mentally challenged, then academia is a cakewalk compared to physical work (and even if they are mentally challenged? My brother aint the brightest spark but is on the verge of his second degree). This is from personal experience. I'm not saying that a career such as you suggest doesn't take a lot of commitment and effort, but studying is nowhere near hard work. And considering the average mark for university students finishing a degree is between 60 and 70 percent, it's clear that most don't even put in a lot of effort (possibly due to our student culture).

No comparison, and definitely no justification whatsoever for the disparity between the rich and working man.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.