• 'To blame Margaret Thatcher for today's problems is to misunderstand history'
    32 replies, posted
[QUOTE]The UK’s private sector actually suffered from too little debt in the 1970s and 1980s: it was too hard to obtain a mortgage. A revolution was desperately needed and Thatcher duly delivered, with Big Bang, combined with mass, popular privatisations helping to fuel an extraordinary performance by the stock markets. Of course, the pendulum eventually swung too far the other way, and we ended up with a demented credit bubble, but that was caused primarily by the application to financial services, many years after she left office, of the very same pernicious philosophy that she had rejected for the rest of the economy. Thatcherism was about choice, individual responsibility and independence from the state, not the politicised, artificially pump-primed markets we ended up with by the mid-2000s. She hated bail-outs, government subsidies and nationalisations; and would have looked on in horror at the gradual socialisation of losses and privatisation of profit in the financial services industry in the 15 years running up to the crisis. Starting with the rescue of the LTCM fund in 1998 in New York, regulators decided that no large financial institution could ever fail. Alan Greenspan saw himself as an economist-king, manipulating interest rates to bolster financial markets and ensure perpetual growth, and triggering a giant bubble that burst twice. This was corporatism, not genuine capitalism. Under the new order, including Gordon Brown’s late, unlamented Financial Services Authority, banks were disciplined neither by the free market – the authorities were there as a backstop, so there was no chance of going bust – nor by regulators, who allowed risk to build up unchecked. Greed was no longer balanced out by fear; moral hazard had replaced prudence. Thatcher, the grocer’s daughter and keen student of F.A Hayek, would have despaired. A genuinely Thatcherite government in the 2000s is unlikely to have tolerated the explosion in the money supply – and house price madness – that Brown allowed, not least because Lord Lawson made a similar mistake in the late 1980s when he was Chancellor, triggering an earlier, disastrous house price bubble and bust. The parallels between the two episodes are striking but bizarrely uncommented upon.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/9982316/To-blame-Margaret-Thatcher-for-todays-problems-is-to-misunderstand-history.html"]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/9982316/To-blame-Margaret-Thatcher-for-todays-problems-is-to-misunderstand-history.html[/URL]
I don't think she caused today's problems, but she caused quite a lot of people's problems in her time.
[QUOTE=Hiccuper;40222596]I don't think she caused today's problems, but she caused quite a lot of people's problems in her time.[/QUOTE] She did yes but it was a shit ton better than what everyone was going through before she came to power yet for some reason nobody 'remembers' that when moaning about their milk.
[QUOTE=Thom12255;40222618]She did yes but it was a shit ton better than what everyone was going through before she came to power yet for some reason nobody 'remembers' that when moaning about their milk.[/QUOTE] I think it's an issue with people not knowing what they're talking about and just "going with the flow" in all these celebrations. Hating her is popular. Hell, I've only bothered to research her in the past day since she died - prior to that I knew nothing about her, and I feel that I know more about her than the majority of those partying in the streets. I doubt this behavior is anything new, however.
[QUOTE='[LOA] SonofBrim;40223370']I think it's an issue with people not knowing what they're talking about and just "going with the flow" in all these celebrations. Hating her is popular. Hell, I've only bothered to research her in the past day since she died - prior to that I knew nothing about her, and I feel that I know more about her than the majority of those partying in the streets. I doubt this behavior is anything new, however.[/QUOTE] That is exactly it and we should all be denouncing that as idiotic instead of passing it off as being ok. Some people do have real reasons to not like her but I find it very very doubtful that those are the people who are picking fights with the police or vandalizing private property or even doing idiotic twitter posts about her.
[QUOTE=Hiccuper;40222596]I don't think she caused today's problems, but she caused quite a lot of people's problems in her time.[/QUOTE] Twas for the better.
Unemployment was around 13-14% when she came inti office, and wasnt it lowered to around 5% when she left? She might have caused problems, but you cant argue that she didnt help either
[QUOTE=EnlightenDead;40223534]Unemployment was around 13-14% when she came inti office, and wasnt it lowered to around 5% when she left? She might have caused problems, but you cant argue that she didnt help either[/QUOTE] It was just under 6% when she came into office and after the restructuring of the economy rose to as high as 12%, by the time she left office it was around 6.5%
[QUOTE='[LOA] SonofBrim;40223370']I think it's an issue with people not knowing what they're talking about and just "going with the flow" in all these celebrations. Hating her is popular. Hell, I've only bothered to research her in the past day since she died - prior to that I knew nothing about her, and I feel that I know more about her than the majority of those partying in the streets. I doubt this behavior is anything new, however.[/QUOTE] I don't thing the hate is as popular as most think it is. It's a very vocal minority though.
ignorance of history is considered something to be proud of by the kind of people that would celebrate her death
Wasn't there a fancy quote about this or something? [I]Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it.[/I] - George Santayana
No reason to hate her like she was Hitler or something. Also no reason to circlejerk about how amazing she was like The Economist is currently doing.
I'm not really up to today's politics, But what exactly did she do that was bad? Never really heard of her before this.
Lowered taxes for the rich, introduced a sales tax, cut welfare programs, and privatized the economy. She was like a British Reagan, but without the weird religious crap or the being a cowboy. She was an anti-feminist and was vocal about it.
[QUOTE=person11;40224479]Lowered taxes for the rich, introduced a sales tax, cut welfare programs, and privatized the economy. She was like a British Reagan, but without the weird religious crap or the being a cowboy. She was an anti-feminist and was vocal about it.[/QUOTE] Lowered taxes for the rich is a bad thing? The top rate of income tax in the 70s was 89% on income and 98% on dividends - it was insanity. She also lowered taxes for the masses: [quote]..the basic rate from 33% to 30%. The basic rate was also cut for three successive budgets - to 29% in the 1986 budget, 27% in 1987 and to 25% in 1988..[/quote] Sales tax? You mean VAT that was introduced in 1973? Privatised the economy.. No, in the 70s the government had it's hand in everything: mining, automotives, aerospace, steel industry, rail transport, you name it. British industry at the time was stagnating and there had been massive job losses in the decades before Thatcher, it was beyond saving. Thatcher did not believe in the privatisation of all industries, e.g Health, Education, Defence.
First of all I ought to say I'm not very informed on the subject, but after some reading it seems to me it's safe to say she was a fairly terrible human being, what with considering Augsuto Pinochet a good friend and giving him asylum from being judged on a human rights court. Or supporting the appartheid. Or seriously suggesting homosexuals should be sent to special camps and cured of homosexuality. Or openly using homophobic slang and believing AIDS was a exclusively homosexual disease. I dunno but those are widely documented facts and I think they speak volumes about her. And all that on top of her shitty neo-liberal politics, of which it's ignorant to say they didn't have any modern-day repercussions. It's also ignorant to say none of the people celebrating were affected by her policies back in the day. Overall I understand people dancing on their grave.
[QUOTE=The Un-Men;40225062]First of all I ought to say I'm not very informed on the subject, but after some reading it seems to me it's safe to say she was a fairly terrible human being, what with considering Augsuto Pinochet a good friend and giving him asylum from being judged on a human rights court. Or supporting the appartheid. Or seriously suggesting homosexuals should be sent to special camps and cured of homosexuality. Or openly using homophobic slang and believing AIDS was a exclusively homosexual disease. I dunno but those are widely documented facts and I think they speak volumes about her. And all that on top of her shitty neo-liberal politics, of which it's ignorant to say they didn't have any modern-day repercussions. It's also ignorant to say none of the people celebrating were affected by her policies back in the day. Overall I understand people dancing on their grave.[/QUOTE] You're right, you're not very informed at all. Her friendship with Augusto Pinochet came about because he supported her through the Falklands war, for example the radar situated in Chile helped the British task force track Argentine attacks - the one day it was nonoperational led to the loss of two ships and 54 British lives, it was invaluable. He also implemented reforms in Chile similar to hers in Britain after he overthrew a Socialist government. Thatcher condemned the Apartheid, but she also condemned sanctions on it - think. The lowest people in society were already impoverished, how do you think sanctions would help? She also viewed the ANC as terrorists given her experiences of Northern Ireland. Seriously, even one of the last ministers in the Apartheid regime thought she did more to end the regime than anyone else in Europe [quote]F.W. de Klerk, the last apartheid-era president of South Africa, said in a statement that Thatcher, whom he called a friend, was “a steadfast critic of apartheid.” He said she had a better grasp of the complexities and realities of South Africa than many of her contemporaries. “She exerted more influence in what happened in South Africa than any other political leader,” de Klerk said. He said Thatcher “correctly believed” that more could be achieved through constructive engagement with his government than international sanctions and isolation of the South African government. Thatcher argued that sanctions were immoral because they would throw thousands of South African blacks out of work. Her stance allowed British companies to continue operating in apartheid South Africa, where the United Kingdom was the biggest trading partner and foreign investor.[/quote] You genuinely think Margaret Thatcher was homophobic? She was one of few Conservative ministers to support the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1966 - besides the fact that AIDS was discovered in the 80s and [I]everyone[/I] back then believed it just affected homosexuals. It's also a bit rich that people criticise her for destroying morals and tradition but then when she actually tried to retain the status quo she was lambasted. Your 'facts' are so widely documented but you failed to actually read anything about them. You can't condemn ignorance when your post begins "she was a fairly terrible human being" - the amount of good she did for the country vastly outweighs the negatives, the [I]actual[/I] negatives of her time as prime minister you haven't even touched upon.
She was good friends with Jimmy Saville though so at least kids are a tiny bit more safer with both of them gone
She was a cunt, but shes entirely worthy of respect as a politician for having strong opinions and making hard decisions. She was assertive and stood by her choices, whether you agreed or not. How many politicians is that true of today?
[QUOTE=butt2089;40229343] You genuinely think Margaret Thatcher was homophobic? She was one of few Conservative ministers to support the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1966 - besides the fact that AIDS was discovered in the 80s and [I]everyone[/I] back then believed it just affected homosexuals. It's also a bit rich that people criticise her for destroying morals and tradition but then when she actually tried to retain the status quo she was lambasted. [/QUOTE] Didn't she pass a law making the government not allowed to acknowledge the fact that homosexuals existed?
[QUOTE=butt2089;40224657]Privatised the economy.. No, in the 70s the government had it's hand in everything: mining, automotives, aerospace, steel industry, rail transport, you name it. British industry at the time was stagnating and there had been massive job losses in the decades before Thatcher, it was beyond saving. Thatcher did not believe in the privatisation of all industries, e.g Health, Education, Defence.[/QUOTE] What do you mean, 'no'? That certainly sounds like privatization, if a given industry is state-owned or a public non-profit, and then becomes privately-owned.
[QUOTE=Reds;40229909]Didn't she pass a law making the government not allowed to acknowledge the fact that homosexuals existed?[/QUOTE] Section 28 was an amendment of the 'Local Government Act 1988' and sought to reduce the promotion of homosexuality in schools in order to bolster the traditional family view. This came at a time when the number of divorces was soaring. It also wasn't really much of a law as no one was ever prosecuted under it. Bear in mind that only a few decades before, being gay was actually illegal - Thatcher was one of few Conservatives to vote in favour of the decriminalisation of homosexuality [QUOTE=Megafan;40229955]What do you mean, 'no'? That certainly sounds like privatization, if a given industry is state-owned or a public non-profit, and then becomes privately-owned.[/QUOTE] Yes privatisation took place - but the 'economy' was not privatised, only particular industries were. The same industries that were causing a major drag on the economy. The statement would also suggest that there was no such thing as private ownership before hand, obviously there was.
[QUOTE=person11;40224479]Lowered taxes for the rich, introduced a sales tax, cut welfare programs, and privatized the economy. She was like a British Reagan, but without the weird religious crap or the being a cowboy. She was an anti-feminist and was vocal about it.[/QUOTE] The main problem with most news outlets in this case is they're doing this. That's just a list you've made. There's no information regarding long term tactics and general reasoning. I'll take a policy when she was Education Secretary, the now infamous scrapping of free milk. Simple fact is she saw no reason why households couldn't buy milk themselves. It saved a bit of money, a bit was spent in local shops and the milk that went to the schools was pretty poor by most standards anyway. Didn't stop the papers going insane over just 'milk taken from children'. That was the only focus, and that hasn't changed to this day it would appear.
[QUOTE=Memobot;40230575]The main problem with most news outlets in this case is they're doing this. That's just a list you've made. There's no information regarding long term tactics and general reasoning. I'll take a policy when she was Education Secretary, the now infamous scrapping of free milk. Simple fact is she saw no reason why households couldn't buy milk themselves. It saved a bit of money, a bit was spent in local shops and the milk that went to the schools was pretty poor by most standards anyway. Didn't stop the papers going insane over just 'milk taken from children'. That was the only focus, and that hasn't changed to this day it would appear.[/QUOTE] The biggest piece of information that's always left out from the milk 'snatcher' ordeal is that free milk was still available to under-7's - it was only removed from children over 7 as they weren't even drinking it.
I love facepunch going from making jokes about her being dead to denouncing those people making those jokes when someone posts an opinion piece about her not being all that bad
[QUOTE=butt2089;40224657]Lowered taxes for the rich is a bad thing? The top rate of income tax in the 70s was 89% on income and 98% on dividends - it was insanity. She also lowered taxes for the masses: Sales tax? You mean VAT that was introduced in 1973? Privatised the economy.. No, in the 70s the government had it's hand in everything: mining, automotives, aerospace, steel industry, rail transport, you name it. British industry at the time was stagnating and there had been massive job losses in the decades before Thatcher, it was beyond saving. Thatcher did not believe in the privatisation of all industries, e.g Health, Education, Defence.[/QUOTE] Exactly, my grandfather was not a rich man (a chemist) and was being taxed for around 80% of his income. It was absurd, and scared away foreign investment. Ultimately, someone needed to modernise the British economy, and although she probably could have dealt with the miners better, she was the only person to be assertive and confident enough to change it. She turned a failing economy around.
Muh failing coal industry
The coal industry had already been in decline since the early 20th century. Somehow it was kept alive into the 1980s.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;40233918]Actually wanted to send in UK troops to enforce the apartheid, despite saying she was "against" it (To get the vote)[/QUOTE] Never heard this before, got a source?
[QUOTE=PelPix123;40233918]Actually wanted to send in UK troops to enforce the apartheid, despite saying she was "against" it (To get the vote)[/QUOTE] I can't find anything about what you're referring to, but further up the page I posted this : "Thatcher condemned the Apartheid, but she also condemned sanctions on it - think. The lowest people in society were already impoverished, how do you think sanctions would help? She also viewed the ANC as terrorists given her experiences of Northern Ireland. Seriously, even one of the last ministers in the Apartheid regime thought she did more to end the regime than anyone else in Europe" [QUOTE]F.W. de Klerk, the last apartheid-era president of South Africa, said in a statement that Thatcher, whom he called a friend, was “a steadfast critic of apartheid.” He said she had a better grasp of the complexities and realities of South Africa than many of her contemporaries. “She exerted more influence in what happened in South Africa than any other political leader,” de Klerk said. He said Thatcher “correctly believed” that more could be achieved through constructive engagement with his government than international sanctions and isolation of the South African government. Thatcher argued that sanctions were immoral because they would throw thousands of South African blacks out of work. Her stance allowed British companies to continue operating in apartheid South Africa, where the United Kingdom was the biggest trading partner and foreign investor.[/QUOTE] There's a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_South_Africa_during_apartheid]wiki[/url] article about it that explains how the UK wanted to end the regime.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.