Margaret Thatcher day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Heather]

To lighten the mood......

Bert was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young 'pullets,' and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs.

He kept records, and any rooster not performing went into the soup pot and was replaced.

This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to his roosters.

Each bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing.

Now, he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report by just listening to the bells.

Bert's favourite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine specimen, but this morning he noticed old Butch's bell hadn't rung at all!

When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, would run for cover.

To Bert's amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring.

He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one.

Bert was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the London Show and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.

The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the "No Bell Piece Prize," but they also awarded him the "Pulletsurprise" as well.

Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making. Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the unsuspecting populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention.

Vote carefully in the next election, you can't always hear the bells.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

I do.
Though broadly correct in that cheaper imports undermined(see what I did there) the viability of our own mining industry, they all came from countries where the mining industry was heavily subsidised by central governments, for the good of their own countries. Closing down our mining industry was a political decision, and much of it was to do with breaking the unions and to hell with the people and communities destroyed in this idealistic crusade, or the legalities of the pathway to achieving the objective.
I wouldnt dispute that Scargill was an egocentric nutter, but he was backed at the time by tens of thousands of decent ordinary people determined to do what they thought was best for the future of their families and communities. We shouldnt forget their sacrifice in all of this, if they hadnt held out for their principles for as long as possible, we would be further down the road towards a totalitarian state now.

 

[Apple]

To lighten the mood......

Bert was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young 'pullets,' and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs.

He kept records, and any rooster not performing went into the soup pot and was replaced.

This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to his roosters.

Each bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing.

Now, he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report by just listening to the bells.

Bert's favourite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine specimen, but this morning he noticed old Butch's bell hadn't rung at all!

When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, would run for cover.

To Bert's amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring.

He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one.

Bert was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the London Show and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.

The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the "No Bell Piece Prize," but they also awarded him the "Pulletsurprise" as well.

Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making. Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the unsuspecting populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention.

Vote carefully in the next election, you can't always hear the bells.

One of my overseas exchange students has become an avid watcher of this forum... just for the "British" off topic comments!

 

[psafloyd]

I do.

In that the industry needed reform, not closure.

Though broadly correct in that cheaper imports undermined(see what I did there) the viability of our own mining industry, they all came from countries where the mining industry was heavily subsidised by central governments, for the good of their own countries. Closing down our mining industry was a political decision, and much of it was to do with breaking the unions and to hell with the people and communities destroyed in this idealistic crusade, or the legalities of the pathway to achieving the objective.
I wouldnt dispute that Scargill was an egocentric nutter, but he was backed at the time by tens of thousands of decent ordinary people determined to do what they thought was best for the future of their families and communities. We shouldnt forget their sacrifice in all of this, if they hadnt held out for their principles for as long as possible, we would be further down the road towards a totalitarian state now.

Absolutely. But millions supported them. Remember, this was not a marginal issue. Nearly 200,000 miners went on strike in 1984 over the loss of 20,000 jobs.

 

[pargyle]

In that the industry needed reform, not closure.



Absolutely. But millions supported them. Remember, this was not a marginal issue. Nearly 200,000 miners went on strike in 1984 over the loss of 20,000 jobs.

"Nearly 200,000 miners went on strike in 1984 over the loss of 20,000 jobs".

That was the problem ... if Arthur Scargill had had any sense ... indeed, if he had gone to a ballot ... then perhaps, without a strike and the acceptance that SOME collieries had to close and that EVENTUALLY there would have to be significant changes within the industry then:

a: He would have completely been on the moral high ground.
b: The Government would have been seen as unreasonable in attempting to close as many pits as they finally did.
c: The pits that failed because they weren't maintained would have remained in service.
d. The tens of thousands who suffered as a result of the strike (not just the miners) would have been spared the suffering.
e. If he had held off strike action, worked to rule for a few months, run down the stock-piled coal stocks and taken time to negotiate a sensible exit strategy for the 20 pits that HAD to close then he still had the opportunity to bring a strike on if matters could not be concluded in a reasonable manner.

Scargill was an intransigent self promoting idiot with the strategy sense of an earwig ... I could never have seen Joe Gormley backing himself into that sort of a corner ... and Joe did more for miners than any other NUM leader before or since....

I think the quote 'standing on your principles usually costs you money' was his ....

 

[psafloyd]

"Nearly 200,000 miners went on strike in 1984 over the loss of 20,000 jobs".

That was the problem ... if Arthur Scargill had had any sense ... indeed, if he had gone to a ballot ... then perhaps, without a strike and the acceptance that SOME collieries had to close and that EVENTUALLY there would have to be significant changes within the industry then:

a: He would have completely been on the moral high ground.
b: The Government would have been seen as unreasonable in attempting to close as many pits as they finally did.
c: The pits that failed because they weren't maintained would have remained in service.
d. The tens of thousands who suffered as a result of the strike (not just the miners) would have been spared the suffering.
e. If he had held off strike action, worked to rule for a few months, run down the stock-piled coal stocks and taken time to negotiate a sensible exit strategy for the 20 pits that HAD to close then he still had the opportunity to bring a strike on if matters could not be concluded in a reasonable manner.

Scargill was an intransigent self promoting idiot with the strategy sense of an earwig ... I could never have seen Joe Gormley backing himself into that sort of a corner ... and Joe did more for miners than any other NUM leader before or since....

I think the quote 'standing on your principles usually costs you money' was his ....

Ridiculous. Thatcher had her eyes on the unions from the Heath administration. She was going to break the unions come what may and it is the way she did it I object to.

Her actions (not to mention discarding Maastricht) meant the pendulum swung too far the other way and people were free to be exploited –-and they were.

The ONLY decent thing the Labour government did in its three terms was to introduce some long overdue labour laws which offered a degree more protection to workers.

 

[Apple]

The ONLY decent thing the Labour government did in its three terms was to introduce some long overdue labour laws which offered a degree more protection to workers.

Particularly for the female gender!
Thatcher did of course NOT have any girls in HER cabinet!

 

[Hivemaker.]

Particularly for the female gender!
Thatcher did of course NOT have any girls in HER cabinet!

Baroness Young.

 

[Apple]

OF COURSE,
Janet Young!
Doris said she was always considered to be one of the boys and therefore does not count,!

 

[pargyle]

Ridiculous. Thatcher had her eyes on the unions from the Heath administration. She was going to break the unions come what may and it is the way she did it I object to.

I can't be bothered to debate this with you I'm afraid ... there is not one shred of evidence (either witnessed at the time or from the Cabinet papers subsequently released) that there was any hidden agenda by the Thatcher Government to 'break' the unions. I have presented the facts, social history FACTS and all you do is peddle the sort of tripe that was put out, at the time, by the Socialist Worker and has been perpetuated by people who decline to accept the reality of what happened.

I was the first to say that there would have been a better way of closing the coal mines, if the NUM ~ principally Arthus Scargill ~ had seen some sense. I accept that the opportunity, presented by a protracted miners strike, was one that the Government at the time could not resist ... I too question the ethics of this action - even given this opportunity, Government should have the ethics not to exploit the situation - but I can see the fiscal logic to what was done, albeit in the short term rather than over a longer period.

There was no such option for many of the previously nationalised industries ... you only have to look at the cost to the country of these loss making monoliths to realise that privatisation was the only sensible option. The myth (and that's all it is - a myth) that the nationalised industries were privatised to make money for rich investors is poppycock - remember the millions of people who applied for shares (distributed in small blocks by lottery) when the electricity industry was privatised ... lots of people with a few hundred pounds saved bought the shares ... and then made money when they CHOSE to sell them on at a profit.

The opposite of what Thatcher had envisaged happened ... rather than handing the power (sorry) back to the people the small investors chose to cash in their shares for windfall profits. Now the majority of our power industry is owned by the French power (state owned) giant EDF after a takeover incompetently permitted in 1998 by A LABOUR GOVERNMENT... Mandelson and Byers !! This is actually, a situation that the main union (Unison) in the power industry is happy with ... meeting their aspirations for renationalisation ... just a pity that it's now another countries nationalised industry !

Billions were spent by the conservatives subsequent to the pit closures in those areas most affected ... witness Doncaster Freeport and the money poured into 'Grey Economic Zones' to attract industry and enterprise to those areas ... low rates, tax incentives for industry relocating to these zones, public money to clear derelict industrial sites ... billions. They continued to be part of the Tories policy until well into the 1990's.

The reality was that some of these zones were located in areas which were in almost terminal industrial decline (Clydeside, Tyneside, parts of Sheffield and S.Yorks, South Wales and the Valleys amongst others) with an ageing workforce that were unqualified or unwilling to change to new industries.

Some of these areas are, at last, seeing the fruits of this previous investment as the next generation of workers find jobs within non-heavy industrial sectors. There's not enough of these jobs and there is a whole different argument about what sort of jobs are available for what would have previously been classed as 'unskilled labour' but the reality was that massive efforts were made to replace the lost heavy industry jobs by encouraging new (and often foreign) investors.

Not an easy task in a country that was, at the time, the poor man of Europe with a reputation for having a workforce that would strike at the drop of a hat for what some considered trivial reasons. Is it any wonder that it took decades to restore some of these deprived areas to ANY sort of economic stability and that there is still work to do.

The recent massive recession (brought about, in part by the last Governments incompetent reading and management of the international and domestic banking situation) has not helped these areas, which have very fragile local economies; job losses as a result of the recession in these areas need to continue to be addressed with growth encouraged in SME's and tax breaks provided for companies that GENUINELY create jobs.

I've posted enough on the thread now ... if you research a bit more about the history of those turbulent times and present some evidence for your blustering about Thatcher and her hidden agendas then I will be interested to read them - it might be a long wait.

 

[psafloyd]

Don't be so bloody patronising. I'm sorry you find it offensive I don't agree with everything you say, but I would imagine with an attitude like that, very few people do.

And don't talk to me about facts. Your own exposition is full of conjecture and opinion –-which is fine, as you're entitled to it – but that doesn't invalidate my own nor make the unconscious mouthpiece of any organ or movement which happens to stand in opposition to your own beliefs.

I would imagine your reaction is a classic case of you only singing when you're winning. Why you felt the need to direct that stream at me, I don't know. I probably agree with more of your positions than some others in the thread. Perhaps it is you who should go back and do some research into that?

I can't be bothered to debate this with you I'm afraid ... there is not one shred of evidence (either witnessed at the time or from the Cabinet papers subsequently released) that there was any hidden agenda by the Thatcher Government to 'break' the unions. I have presented the facts, social history FACTS and all you do is peddle the sort of tripe that was put out, at the time, by the Socialist Worker and has been perpetuated by people who decline to accept the reality of what happened.

I was the first to say that there would have been a better way of closing the coal mines, if the NUM ~ principally Arthus Scargill ~ had seen some sense. I accept that the opportunity, presented by a protracted miners strike, was one that the Government at the time could not resist ... I too question the ethics of this action - even given this opportunity, Government should have the ethics not to exploit the situation - but I can see the fiscal logic to what was done, albeit in the short term rather than over a longer period.

There was no such option for many of the previously nationalised industries ... you only have to look at the cost to the country of these loss making monoliths to realise that privatisation was the only sensible option. The myth (and that's all it is - a myth) that the nationalised industries were privatised to make money for rich investors is poppycock - remember the millions of people who applied for shares (distributed in small blocks by lottery) when the electricity industry was privatised ... lots of people with a few hundred pounds saved bought the shares ... and then made money when they CHOSE to sell them on at a profit.

The opposite of what Thatcher had envisaged happened ... rather than handing the power (sorry) back to the people the small investors chose to cash in their shares for windfall profits. Now the majority of our power industry is owned by the French power (state owned) giant EDF after a takeover incompetently permitted in 1998 by A LABOUR GOVERNMENT... Mandelson and Byers !! This is actually, a situation that the main union (Unison) in the power industry is happy with ... meeting their aspirations for renationalisation ... just a pity that it's now another countries nationalised industry !

Billions were spent by the conservatives subsequent to the pit closures in those areas most affected ... witness Doncaster Freeport and the money poured into 'Grey Economic Zones' to attract industry and enterprise to those areas ... low rates, tax incentives for industry relocating to these zones, public money to clear derelict industrial sites ... billions. They continued to be part of the Tories policy until well into the 1990's.

The reality was that some of these zones were located in areas which were in almost terminal industrial decline (Clydeside, Tyneside, parts of Sheffield and S.Yorks, South Wales and the Valleys amongst others) with an ageing workforce that were unqualified or unwilling to change to new industries.

Some of these areas are, at last, seeing the fruits of this previous investment as the next generation of workers find jobs within non-heavy industrial sectors. There's not enough of these jobs and there is a whole different argument about what sort of jobs are available for what would have previously been classed as 'unskilled labour' but the reality was that massive efforts were made to replace the lost heavy industry jobs by encouraging new (and often foreign) investors.

Not an easy task in a country that was, at the time, the poor man of Europe with a reputation for having a workforce that would strike at the drop of a hat for what some considered trivial reasons. Is it any wonder that it took decades to restore some of these deprived areas to ANY sort of economic stability and that there is still work to do.

The recent massive recession (brought about, in part by the last Governments incompetent reading and management of the international and domestic banking situation) has not helped these areas, which have very fragile local economies; job losses as a result of the recession in these areas need to continue to be addressed with growth encouraged in SME's and tax breaks provided for companies that GENUINELY create jobs.

I've posted enough on the thread now ... if you research a bit more about the history of those turbulent times and present some evidence for your blustering about Thatcher and her hidden agendas then I will be interested to read them - it might be a long wait.

 

[pargyle]

?

Don't be so bloody patronising. I'm sorry you find it offensive I don't agree with everything you say, but I would imagine with an attitude like that, very few people do.

I don't find it offensive .... although posts that start "Ridiculous !" but have no actual substance don't contribute to a reasonable debate. I expect people not to agree with some things but I have posted, mainly, facts ... historical facts - not conjecture or emotional claptrap.

And don't talk to me about facts. Your own exposition is full of conjecture and opinion –-which is fine, as you're entitled to it – but that doesn't invalidate my own nor make the unconscious mouthpiece of any organ or movement which happens to stand in opposition to your own beliefs.

Well ... there's more facts in my posts than opinions and there's no conjecture that I can see.. perhaps you should look back over your own posts to see how many 'facts' you contributed.

I would imagine your reaction is a classic case of you only singing when you're winning. Why you felt the need to direct that stream at me, I don't know.

Actually ... if you look at your posts on this thread - and the last one that I responded to .. a lot of them were quoting my posts ?#95 #96 #100 #109 #126 #139 #146 - Is it any wonder this last post was in response to #146 ?

I probably agree with more of your positions than some others in the thread. Perhaps it is you who should go back and do some research into that.

I accept that there are points of agreement between us ... I was no great fan of Margaret Thatcher ... indeed, I'm not a great fan of many politicians .. but I think (and this is one of the few opinions that I've put forward) that she and her Government were maligned for a great deal of things that were situation based and reactive and not pre-planned policy. There were many good things to come out of the Thatcher years but she only appears to be remembered, by some, for a small number of Government actions which, in hindsight, could have been handled better.

You have to remember, though, what she took over from .. Cabinet papers from 1974 have Jim Callaghan telling Cabinet colleagues 'the economy is in such a weak state that I fear that there will be a breakdown of democracy, civil unrest and violent disorder' he went on to say 'If I were a younger man I would consider emigrating' ... at that stage he was Foreign Minister and his words came home to roost when he was Prime Minister in 78/79. More strikes and days lost that year than during the Miner's strike !!

At the end of Callaghan's term in office, in 1979, during his last year, there were over 4500 strikes in the UK resulting in over 29 million working days lost .. by the time Thatcher was ousted in 1990 there were only 630 strikes during that year with 2 million lost working days.

The GDP grew by over 24% during Thatcher's years, government spending rose by nearly 15%, employment & social security, health, education and training spending all grew by over 30% and law and order by over 50%. There were cuts in defence expenditure and Thatchers personal frugality (well documented) was reflected in the 'value for money' policies she insisted on her Ministers pursuing. The Civil Service was never so small ... before and since !! State Pensions were increased by more than inflation (never since) and Social Security benefits were taken out of the 'means tested' ere and changes were put in place to end the humiliation of 'dole queues' and 'labour exchanges' and she introduced the employment laws that now provide a sound framework for employer/employee relations

Her Government did more for the common working man than most Labour governments before or since !

She was pro the European freemarket economy but renegotiated, successfully, the iniquitous financial situation bankrupt Britain found itself in with regard to its contribution to the EU coffers. The rebate on the CAP, she negotiated, is still operative and worth over £3.8 billion a year (although it would have been higher if Blair had not conceded a decrease of 20% in the rebate amount in 2005).

Is it any wonder that in the 1983 general election she won a further term of office with an increased majority and Labour experienced their worst election result ever .. Only 39% of Union members in that election voted for the Labour Party.

So ... by all means have your opinion on Thatcher as a person ... but consider the situation that she faced when she entered office and the vastly improved situation (for the vast majority of the UK population) when she finally left ... there were mistakes, the handling of the miners, the poll tax, some privatisations but ... on balance .. we were all better off after Thatcher than before and in many cases, since !

I think it's run it's course as far as I'm concerned, we can agree to agree where there is common ground and disagree where opinions vary. If nothing else it's been a tramp through the history books and a few ageing memory cells.

 

[victor meldrew]

Well put !!!
VM


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Edwardking]

Hear! Hear!

 

[psafloyd]

I don't find it offensive .... although posts that start "Ridiculous !" but have no actual substance don't contribute to a reasonable debate. I expect people not to agree with some things but I have posted, mainly, facts ... historical facts - not conjecture or emotional claptrap.

I don't intend to go into this ad nauseam –-it would be time better served in the pub where these discussions have more meaning. But your assertions about Wales are conjecture and at odds with what you have said about the motivation for reform.

You say Thatcher's administration didn't want to smash the unions, it spent billions on the regions with mines. After they were closed. But the population was unwilling or unable to change careers.

So wouldn't the sensible pound have been spent on redeveloping a region and facilitating its transition into a new economy if there was no political dimension and she was not trying to make a point?

And your point about doing more for the common working man than any government before or since is unsubstantiated as far as I can see. No government in recent times has turned around an economy. Managing the economy is like riding a greased pig. You may be able to influence a little, but most of the time you're hanging on for dear life.

And you really should be more careful about your use of 'facts'. Facts are indisputable, but some of what you claim to be facts are anything but. They are conjecture –-perhaps based on an orthodox view and coloured by your experience. That is not a fact.

If we have learned anything this week in relation to the authorities (though here I am referring specifically to alas another example of a criminal element within the police), facts are only facts until they are proven to be lies.

Thanks for the cut and thrust –-it was mildly diverting.

 

[REDWOOD]

I lost my job through Privatisation,

 

[Apple]

I lost my job through Privatisation,

My step mother liked her... she was a bitch too!

 

[REDWOOD]

My step mother liked her... she was a bitch too!

 

[pargyle]

I don't intend to go into this ad nauseam –-it would be time better served in the pub where these discussions have more meaning. But your assertions about Wales are conjecture and at odds with what you have said about the motivation for reform.

Assertions about Wales ???

You say Thatcher's administration didn't want to smash the unions, it spent billions on the regions with mines. After they were closed. But the population was unwilling or unable to change careers.

Precisely ...

So wouldn't the sensible pound have been spent on redeveloping a region and facilitating its transition into a new economy..

Yes it would ... but as I said in my previous post ..the Government of the time were reacting to circumstances and firefighting a disastrous situation left behind by the previous Labour Government, Not a lot of change there is there ?

if there was no political dimension and she was not trying to make a point?

Well ... I think once she was confronted by the Miners strike she had little choice but to stand firm ... Arthur Scargill's rhetoric, at the time, was pretty uncompromising and it was clear that some collieries HAD to close. Between a rock and a coal face as far as I can see. All political parties will always have some political dimension to whatever they do but the Labour Party was so weak at that point that I'm not sure she actually needed a political dimension.

And your point about doing more for the common working man than any government before or since is unsubstantiated as far as I can see.

Industrial relations act, Health & safety regulations, Closed Shop abolished by the Employment Act 1990, the Right to Buy council houses, Inflation under control, interest rates lowered ...there's more - all under the Thatcher regime ... all improved the lot of the working man.

No government in recent times has turned around an economy.

Not since the Thatcher Government turned the economy around ... the figures are a matter of fact ... look them up if you don't believe me.

Managing the economy is like riding a greased pig. You may be able to influence a little, but most of the time you're hanging on for dear life.

And you really should be more careful about your use of 'facts'. Facts are indisputable, but some of what you claim to be facts are anything but. They are conjecture –-perhaps based on an orthodox view and coloured by your experience. That is not a fact.

The information I presented is all in the Public domain and sourced from reputable, independent, statistical bodies or from official documents produced at the time and now released for anyone to read. These were not views (as in Newspaper reports) or something I heard in the pub, They can all be substantiated if you care to go looking ... but you can only take a horse to water, you can't make it drink ...whilst your posts are entertaining they are very light on any FACTS to support your rhetoric.

If we have learned anything this week in relation to the authorities (though here I am referring specifically to alas another example of a criminal element within the police), facts are only facts until they are proven to be lies.


Yes ... and oddly enough one of the reforms that Thatcher brought in was in relation to a corrupt and ineffectually led Police force ... she instigated Scarman, increased police numbers, improved pay for the Police when she accepted, in full, the Edmund Davies recommendations (commissioned by Callagahan and then rejected by him although the report showed that Police pay had fallen well behind other public sector pay levels) and introduced PACE (The Police and Criminal Evidence Act) which still governs the dealings Police have with the Public today. There were huge miscarriages of justice before and during the Thatcher years and she sought to eliminate the 'club' mentality of policing that allowed fabricated police evidence to often go unchallenged. She would be turning in her grave at the revelations this week about the Stephen Lawrence case.

Thanks for the cut and thrust –-it was mildly diverting.

Judging by the number of views on this thread it has given a lot of people something to think about and possibly entertained them.... hopefully, now the beekeeping season seems to be starting, we can look to current affairs rather than history lessons !

 

[Apple]

Judging by the number of views on this thread it has given a lot of people something to think about and possibly entertained them.... hopefully, now the beekeeping season seems to be starting, we can look to current affairs rather than history lessons !

Sadly history repeats itself, particularly with despotic Tory Prime Ministers!
and, needless to say the passion, misguided in my world, that some follow their every word and evil deed with!
IF Thatcher had had her way, I would not have had a job, as the Lady said " lets get on with some real business and forget about all this humdrum environment stuff", probably misquoted.

Two punctures in the Smart yesterday, the RAC man said he thought someone is spreading nails over the motorway!