Margaret Thatcher has died

[Top_gun]

She was voted out of power 23 years ago. If we want to go back further,we can go back to the stupid decisions in the 1950s and 1960s which screwed up industries,such as our aerospace industry,or the constant strikes during the 70s which destroyed the competitiveness of our industries,that meant people like the Japanese started gaining more of a foothold worldwide.

In the end we are not living in 1950 or 1985 though,but 2013 and we have problems NOW,which need to be addressed,and plenty of politicians in the last decade or so,who have just pissed off with no consequences, after failing the public entirely,and a entire lifestyle on top of this which contributed to the mess,and with people still not learning too it seems. Its those decisions which lead to our current problems which are some of the worst we have had in 60 years I suspect. The worst thing is that the crap on both counts is still happening,and we are sill sinking deeper.

Perhaps,we as a country should be trying to solve our more immediate problems.

Many of today's problems were caused by Thatcher's policies.

As for our aerospace industries, yes they were world class but no one other than the RAF were buying their planes.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Many of today's problems were caused by the policies of modern politicians compounded by the poor financial decisions of many of the public.

Fixed for you!

After 1990,Thatcher has been of little importance,so people need to stop caring about the 1980s and worry more about TODAY.

Most the problems caused NOW were down to modern politicians,who could have made better decisions,but did not and have got away scot free too. Thatcher was not forcing them at gun point to do what they did,they chose to make those decisions,not her and if they continued her ways then that is their decisions,not hers again.

This was further complicated by people trying to spend beyond their means,for years,which further compounded the problem so they could have the jet set life without the budget.

People should have known better after the housing crash in the 1980s and the recession after that,but still stuck their head in the sand. They still are sadly,and seem to find it convenient to blame the banks and the government for everything.

We can't blame governments for all our problems.

A reason why a number of Eastern European immigrants have done well(and you get the media complaining about them doing well),is down to the fact that enough,simply were wiser with their money in the first place.

As for our aerospace industries, yes they were world class but no one other than the RAF were buying their planes.

Actually,it runs much deeper than that IMHO,and it is due to short-sightedness by multiple UK governments,and includes space and the civilian aerospace sector.

OTH,at least RR was bailed out in the 1970s after the RB211 issues,so at least it was luckily not all bad.

[Top_gun]

Fixed for you!

Cheeky!

After 1990,Thatcher has been of little importance,so people need to stop caring about the 1980s and worry more about TODAY.

Most the problems caused NOW were down to modern politicians,who could have made better decisions,but did not and have got away scot free too. Thatcher was not forcing them at gun point to do what they did,they chose to make those decisions,not her and if they continued her ways then that is their decisions,not hers again.

This was further complicated by people trying to spend beyond their means,for years,which further compounded the problem so they could have the jet set life without the budget.

People should have known better after the housing crash in the 1980s and the recession after that,but still stuck their head in the sand. They still are sadly,and seem to find it convenient to blame the banks and the government for everything.

Unfortunately, Thatcher's heir Tony Blair carried on her policy while Gordon Brown courted the city. Otherwise they may not have been elected into power. I think you need to understand how free market policies works in order to get a proper picture of today's political horizon. I also suggest you research into Milton Friedman, an Economics advisor to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Were people spending beyond their means? Yes of course but that was because people were being bombarded with advertisements of bettering themselves with cheap mortgage loans which fueled a housing bubble. As house prices rose so did private rents. So I can't really blame people for taking out mortgages as rent money is effectively dead money.

We can't blame governments for all our problems.

Absolutely, newspapers, media, and banks are to blame as well.

A reason why a number of Eastern European immigrants have done well(and you get the media complaining about them doing well),is down to the fact that enough,simply were wiser with their money in the first place.

Well, they have their uses such as keeping inflation down and helping the UK to avoid the dot com crash recession. And you're not held to ransom by builders over a building project. Downside is an oversupply of low skill labour which affects the poor working working class to get jobs and strain on local public services and housing.

Actually,it runs much deeper than that IMHO,and it is due to short-sightedness by multiple UK governments,and includes space and the civilian aerospace sector.

OTH,at least RR was bailed out in the 1970s after the RB211 issues,so at least it was luckily not all bad.

Perhaps, but cutting back military spending in the 60s resulted in many aerospace casualties.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Unfortunately, Thatcher's heir Tony Blair carried on her policy while Gordon Brown courted the city. Otherwise they may not have been elected into power. I think you need to understand how free market policies works in order to get a proper picture of today's political horizon. I also suggest you research into Milton Friedman, an Economics advisor to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Were people spending beyond their means? Yes of course but that was because people were being bombarded with advertisements of bettering themselves with cheap mortgage loans which fueled a housing bubble. As house prices rose so did private rents. So I can't really blame people for taking out mortgages as rent money is effectively dead money.

I understand perfectly,as I have had discussions about this with others.

The current governments made bunches of stupid mistakes which is their fault,and no body elses.

TBH,I don't give a flying monkeys what Thatcher did well over 20 years ago,since it was currently serving politicians who effed up. Like I said,no body put a gun to their head,and said "Follow what Thatcher did to a tee,otherwise we will kill your family!!"

This whole"lets blame Thatcher for all the modern problems" stuff ,is down to the fact that people don't want to blame current politicians because:
1.)They don't want to accept they voted them into power
2.)They don't want to accept the very people who they voted into power took them for a ride
3.)They support some of them still,so by pushing the blame to dead people or those who have not served in governments for decades,its easier to wash away their failures
4.)They overspent on stupid things on credit,and now don't want to take the rap for their impulsive,"lets live for today" lifestyle

Its another case,of lets push the blame,a million years into the past,since people well, will feel better about themselves,since "its not their fault" by association.

Hence,the same mistakes will be repeated again and again,because its not the fault of todays world or society right??

While we are at,we might as well blame Nazi Germany and the Spanish Inquisition for all the problems in Europe.

Absolutely, newspapers, media, and banks are to blame as well.

Yes,plus the general public.

TBH,I am annoyed of the inability of sections of the general public to just accept it is also partially their fault.Its always shifting blame to some other cause,so they can hid their own errors and live in denial.

If people don't accept their own mistakes,how are they going to learn?? We all make mistakes,but perhaps there are sections of the public who think they never have done so.

Well, they have their uses such as keeping inflation down and helping the UK to avoid the dot com crash recession. And you're not held to ransom by builders over a building project. Downside is an oversupply of low skill labour which affects the poor working working class to get jobs and strain on local public services and housing.

Yeah,all Eastern European people here are just labourers?? What about the educated ones here who also work in high level jobs too?? People who actually want to get paid a decent wage,well because they are trained professionals??

They all pay tax,so they are entitled to any benefits taxpayers get.

Lets go,back a few decades,with the countless strikes,etc,which ended up dooming a number of our own industries compared to many more countries,which had better work ethic and dedication to the job.

After all there seems to be that there were many people,who thought sponging off the state was fine too,when we were not in recession,who were not interested in actually working. I would not really care if they got someone apart from the taxpayer to fund their lifestyles and umpteen children,but they didn't.

In the end that money would have been better spent towards those who wanted to work and those who actually could not work due to actual illness.

Perhaps, but cutting back military spending in the 60s resulted in many aerospace casualties.

Plus some other frankly weird decisions,which were either political or just short sighted. Not all were budget related,sadly.

Anyway,they are mostly dead and gone. Lets hope,at least some of the stuff like what RE are looking at gets some more help.

Edit!!

I won't probably continue on this thread,as I think I have made my thoughts clear. We might have to agree to disagree on a number of points.

[Apex]

TBH,I don't give a flying monkeys what Thatcher did well over 20 years ago,since it was currently serving politicians who effed up. Like I said,no body put a gun to their head,and said "Follow what Thatcher did to a tee,otherwise we will kill your family!!"

"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it"

She left a legacy, one that has continued to rot this country from the inside out, where greed and money are the name of the game.

I remember what she and her cronys did, the lies she told, the lives she destroyed; so i will shed not a tear for her death but rather for thoese she destroyed.

To thoese that say show some respect, where was her respect for the people of this land ???, she deserves none and will get none.

Her name is mud in the village i grew up in, it was never the same after what she started.

[TheAnimus]

It was widely reported for many years that the UK had the lowest productivity record in Europe.

Lets just remind you what your trying to assert.

Here's a Guardian's article on UK's productivity levels. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...nd-competitors

So your trying to suggest that article backs up your claim.

It doesn't. At all. Not even close.

We have long had a productivity gap with the US, we have also had one with France both are in no small part due to how the gap is measured. If you really want to know more I'd highly recommend the book I mentioned earlier, it is generally accepted as the current go to reference book for defining this.

You're not just wrong, you're wrong in every link you've used to back it up, many say the exact opposite of your argument.

In the case of this link, it is comparing against the US, not Europe,

Also this is the Guardian, getting economic coverage from them is like trying to get impartial coverage of a murder trail from the Daily Mail, when the trail includes immigrants, on welfare, who shat on pictures of Dianna. It is always worth keeping that in mind.

Sorry to disappoint you but I certainly ain't thick and am able to interpret data. Looking at the latest OECD figures in 2011, UK's data on GDP per hour worked does highlight its own poor productivity record compared with the more developed European nations. What you've done is misrepresenting the data by including minnow countries such as Estonia, Slovenia & Greece. It's a bit like saying England is the best footballing country in the world because they can score a hat full of goals against San Marino but excluding comparisons against the likes of Spain, Brazil and Germany.

Are they not in europe? Is it not GDP per capita weighted? Your example is very poor because it is based on population. Spain and Greece last I checked were in Europe and have been for some time. Or are you saying we're the worst in europe, once you remove the countries that are worse than us. I agree with that!

However, what is really funny, is you ignore the one good quote in that Guardian link of yours:

Howard Archer, chief UK economist at IHS Global Insight, said: "There is little doubt that productivity has been limited by a combination of recent weak economic activity and companies choosing to hold on to workers.

Having said that, a number of factors appear to have limited UK productivity in recent years. These include: relatively low research & development expenditure, the past diversion of resources to the public sector (which is generally considered to be less productive), infrastructure bottlenecks, and education inefficiencies.

This is why I would say if you want to use 'productivity' as a metric, you really need to understand what it is measuring. Myself I'd rather we have a lower productivity statistic, if it means we have lower unemployment and a better quality of life for everyone, rather than just a few with the cushy jobs.

When you look at unemployment as well, for instance france has long had youth unemployment, we saw last year the highest we've seen since records for the UK began, its down now, but I think we maybe overtook them at one point last year, but during the last 10 years france has had consistently high levels of youth unemployment. From OECD data in 2007 before the crunch bit, france was at 18.3% and we were at 13.6%.

So, quick recap. Your wrong, completely wrong. Your links show that.

To then try to shift it to a 'france has higher productivity levels' to is also somewhat disingenuous, and still doesn't back up your fact.

Anyway, are you an idiot or a liar?

[g8ina]

OK, I know I said no comment, but I must ask that top gun and animus at least try and be civil to each other, or further action may have to be taken.

Please keep it nice guys !

[opel80uk]

I read somewhere that one of the reasons she was hated was because there was a suspicion that she was monetising human value. Judging by some of the comments both here and on the welfare thread, it appears to me to be a suspicion well founded.

[abaxas]

I read somewhere that one of the reasons she was hated was because there was a suspicion that she was monetising human value. Judging by some of the comments both here and on the welfare thread, it appears to me to be a suspicion well founded.

Isnt that exactly what the late 70's unions were doing?

[b0redom]

My 2p.

I grew up in the North where conflict between the miners and the Thatcher government decimated the immediate area. Out of work/on strike miners not spending money caused a vicious circle which meant that many other businesses also shut down. It was impossible for me to find holiday work as a student - and believe me I tried.

Since graduating, and beginning work, however, I've worked on a number of client sites and projects in both the public and private sector. The trend as far as I've been able to ascertain is that life in the public sector is way more laid back, and more resources are wasted. This is, however, a general trend and there are instances where it's the other way around.

Most recently my experiences of a unionised workforce have been Bob Crowe and the transport unions. Looking at this from an outside perspective I find him obnoxious and completely unreasonable. What I've read and seen of Arthur Scargill seems to be the same - a hypocrit who extols the virtue of everyone being the same, whilst the union funds a relatively rich lifestyle for him. Retrospectivly therefore, I have to question was it all evil Thatcher, or a bit of both?

In any case, Thatcher has been out of mainstream politics for over 20 years. The idea that she is still all pervading is non-sensical. There have been parties of all colours who could have performed complete u-turns on any or all of her policies. People need to start growing up and accepting that the people who they voted into power have either continued with the policies, expanded upon them, or moved away from them. It's the electorate's fault.

If you were going to celebrate, the time to do that was when the individual was removed from power. Regardless of what you think of the woman's politics, she was a person. An individual who now has a grieving family and friends. The current 'Hey-ho the witch is dead!' being cried from certain segments of the community just makes them look like insensitive idiots.

[opel80uk]

Isnt that exactly what the late 70's unions were doing?

Campaigning for better pay or conditions is hardly what I would describe as placing a monetising human value, I’d describe it as putting a monetary value on a day’s work, regardless of whether one thinks the values the unions placed on it were wrong.

[wasabi]

OK, I know I said no comment, but I must ask that top gun and animus at least try and be civil to each other, or further action may have to be taken.

Please keep it nice guys !

Can I humbly request that you put an admin logo in your sig like some others do? Without double chcking it comes across like you're just making veiled threats.

[opel80uk]

If you were going to celebrate, the time to do that was when the individual was removed from power. Regardless of what you think of the woman's politics, she was a person. An individual who now has a grieving family and friends. The current 'Hey-ho the witch is dead!' being cried from certain segments of the community just makes them look like insensitive idiots.

She may well have been a person who had family and friends, but she was also a person who helped prop up the Khymer Rogue and General Pinochet, and acted as a western apologist for Apartheid South Africa. It's not my cup of tea to celebrate the death of anyone, but I certainly won't be losing any sleep over someone cheering at her demise, and to call someone an idiot for doing so, without knowing the reasons or circumstances as to why they are, is breathtakingly arrogant in the extreme.

[b0redom]

She may well have been a person who had family and friends, but she was also a person who helped prop up the Khymer Rogue and General Pinochet, and acted as a western apologist for Apartheid South Africa. It's not my cup of tea to celebrate the death of anyone, but I certainly won't be losing any sleep over someone cheering at her demise, and to call someone an idiot for doing so, without knowing the reasons or circumstances as to why they are, is breathtakingly arrogant in the extreme.

The fact that you're condoning the celebration of the loss of any human life says more about you IMO.

[TheAnimus]

She may well have been a person who had family and friends, but she was also a person who helped prop up the Khymer Rogue and General Pinochet

The Khymer Rogue were a disgusting regime, but sadly such is the way of international politics. The link between Thatcher supporting them however is somewhat tenuous, ultimately the question is did she order the SAS to train them and why. She did publically speak against their crimes, albe it quietly http://bloodandtreasure.typepad.com/...-children.html However remember the context of this and the time. The US had their arse kicked in Vietnam, now Vietnam was invading Cambodia. Ultimatly this was part of a quagmire of events set in motion by good ol uncle ho murdering pretty much every politic prisoner during the japanese withdrawl, which IIRC was been supervised by a British part of the task force until the French got back there.

At the end of the day I think it is fair to balance the support that was given, against the perceived threat of the Domino Theory (which whilst now been laughable was the de facto US and allied policy). The problem is we don't know the full extent of the support. If it was just getting them to the UN and providing training then it's not really quite as bad as saying they supported the regime in power. For instance if Britain had been able to convince them against collectivisation and communism, it is quite possible millions wouldn't have died.

The point I'm trying to make is its really complex situation, its not, black and white.

On that matter her involvement in South Africa I can't help but find slightly corrupt at times, the exploits of her son I feel we still don't know the half of. I think she was obviously very wrong on that issue. However the after effects of the Arab Spring show the dangers of simply disposing a regime, no matter what the morals of them are, the devil you know and all that.

I wouldn't be at all surprised when information becomes declassified to find a fair bit of information that will prove her even more wrong about her views on it.

However, I still don't see how that justifies revelling in her death. If she was still in power, yes I could understand it. But will the same people revel in the death of Scargill or when it comes to oppression Blair?

[opel80uk]

The fact that you're condoning the celebration of the loss of any human life says more about you IMO.

I'm not condoning anything. I am, however, indifferent to it. I think there's a subtle difference. If my indifference says something about me, it's probably that my sympathy extends to those who I think are deserving of it, and not to all and sundry and those who I believe to have made a great deal of people's lives worse off. I can live with that.