Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Was Mrs. T good for Britain?

Was Mrs. T good for Britain?

  • Yes, Britain is a better place. Thx Maggie...

    Votes: 150 50.7%
  • You must be joking....

    Votes: 130 43.9%
  • Fence...

    Votes: 16 5.4%

  • Total voters
    296
  • Poll closed .








Soulman

New member
Oct 22, 2012
10,966
Sompting
It was Education Minister Edward Short under the Labour government of Harold Wilson who first stopped school milk in 1968. I remember it well as I was the age group (equivalent to current Y9) who lost it. All Mrs Thatcher did in 1979 was extend the removal to the next school years.
Whether that was right or wrong, never forget it was LABOUR who started the trend, and never replaced it in schools. Not during their governments of 74-79 or 97 - 2010.
People seem to forget also the firemans strikes of 1977, who was in power then? labour, so it wasn't just the tories who have screwed this country over
 




aberllefenni

Active member
Jan 15, 2009
467
This. The Country had been brought to its knees by the unions (under both Labour and the Tories) and she took them on, destroyed them and gave Britian the platform to rebuild. She didnt destroy manufacturing, the mining industry, jobs etc - the unions had already done that. But she was hardly a loveable figure; though given the mess we were in and given her opponents were people like Scargill, it was probably just as well!

How, exactly, did the unions destroy manufacturing?

For me, her most despicable act (and there are so many to choose from) was the sale of council housing. It wasn't just persuading people who couldn't afford it that they should be part of the property owning democracy, in effect the beginnings of the sub-prime market. Even more pernicious was her refusal to allow local authorities to spend the capital receipts on replacing those that were sold.

The master plan was to semi-privatise social housing by encouraging housing associations to take over the mantle, a role they were not geared up for. HA's were initially established to plug the gaps in council housing created by various housing and homelessness legislation, predominately housing the single person, they were never intended to be the main social housing provider.

In the early 1980's HA's were given a grant of 85% of the cost of construction. In order to receive this grant they had to agree to a general reduction in room size. Private developers soon cottoned on to this which is why we see the proliferation of estates of owner-occupied shoeboxes.

Thatcher realised HA's could not cope, but rather than admitting defeat she turned to the private-rented sector and as part of the Housing Act 1988 abolished fair rents and introduced market rents which is why we are now lumbered with a massive housing benefit bill.
 




GT49er

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Feb 1, 2009
49,205
Gloucester
Only because Labour yet again done what they know best = run the country into the ground. God help us if they win power ever again.

You mean like they ruined it in the 1940's, by setting up the NHS?

Sad.............................
 


Soulman

New member
Oct 22, 2012
10,966
Sompting
You mean like they ruined it in the 1940's, by setting up the NHS?

Sad.............................

Blimey, we have certainly had to delve a long way back to get an example. I thought the Lib Dims when in power, years earlier had some sound policies......
 


ferring seagull

Well-known member
Dec 30, 2010
4,607
How, exactly, did the unions destroy manufacturing?

For me, her most despicable act (and there are so many to choose from) was the sale of council housing. It wasn't just persuading people who couldn't afford it that they should be part of the property owning democracy, in effect the beginnings of the sub-prime market. Even more pernicious was her refusal to allow local authorities to spend the capital receipts on replacing those that were sold.

The master plan was to semi-privatise social housing by encouraging housing associations to take over the mantle, a role they were not geared up for. HA's were initially established to plug the gaps in council housing created by various housing and homelessness legislation, predominately housing the single person, they were never intended to be the main social housing provider.

In the early 1980's HA's were given a grant of 85% of the cost of construction. In order to receive this grant they had to agree to a general reduction in room size. Private developers soon cottoned on to this which is why we see the proliferation of estates of owner-occupied shoeboxes.

Thatcher realised HA's could not cope, but rather than admitting defeat she turned to the private-rented sector and as part of the Housing Act 1988 abolished fair rents and introduced market rents which is why we are now lumbered with a massive housing benefit bill.

In a word ' demarcation '
 






HawkTheSeagull

New member
Jan 31, 2012
9,122
Eastbourne
If you do not fully understand the facts, that is a very sensible thing to do.

I get the impression that you are young, and if you did not actually live through the power cuts and utter chasos the unions had made in this country, you will never understand.

I was working in Eastbourne at the time, and was on a three day week, with my pay reduced accordingly. The streets were dark as the streetlights were all out of sync, and it was like a third world country.

Some idiots will not take the time to find out about things like that, and only listen to some left-wing bleeding hearts moan about how she smashed the unions, forgetting how it freed this country to move forward. How anyone other than the ex miners in South Yorkshire, and a few other extremist areas can moan about her is beyond me. Even the Poll Tax was a great idea because we all paid the same, rather than people who worked hard to buy nice houses, and paid tax accordingly, being forced to pay over the odds for the same local services. In fact less, because they were not the ones to use the buses etc. Unfortunately, the great unwashed did not like it because they were asked to pay their way in society.

You are right, i am young but that doesnt mean i dont know my history.

All the bads and good have been mentioned on this topic and there certainly is cases for both. Obviously those who have directly been affected by Thatchers actions will say that she wasnt good for Britain, but she did do a few good things which were important for the country.

So yes, the fence for me.
 


pork pie

New member
Dec 27, 2008
6,053
Pork pie land.
You are right, i am young but that doesnt mean i dont know my history.

All the bads and good have been mentioned on this topic and there certainly is cases for both. Obviously those who have directly been affected by Thatchers actions will say that she wasnt good for Britain, but she did do a few good things which were important for the country.

So yes, the fence for me.

I am not suggesting that you don't know your history. But who's version?

An important thing to remember is that the teachers were generally left-wing and also regular strikers who she got a grip of as well, so their opinion is hardly impartial is it?

Unless people were actually alive and suffering from the outrageous actions of the unions, or to me fair, part of the problem themselves, then it is hard to judge Maggie's actions. Young people will not understand what a total mess this country was in before she was made Prime Minister. As usual, it is the ones that she had to upset to get things sorted out that shouted the loudest, and unfortunately still do. The is nothing like a few thousand bitter people to distort the facts over time, because they keep wingeing, whilst the rest of us, that she did a lot of good for, are the silent majority. If she was PM now, this country would soon get back on its feet, and no doubt Europe would receive a giant kick up the backside to help it on its way to normality as well!
 




pork pie

New member
Dec 27, 2008
6,053
Pork pie land.
Blimey, we have certainly had to delve a long way back to get an example. I thought the Lib Dims when in power, years earlier had some sound policies......

This is the first time the LibDems have had any power. The original Liberals were pushed out of the race by Labour. The Social Democrats were the moderate arm of Labour who walked out after a series of outrageous policies by a near Marxist Labour Party and set up on their own. Eventually they merged to create tha new party we see now. That is why, in reality, the LibDems are actually more socialist in many of their policies than Labour, who have chased the votes in the middle ground since Blair.
 


Soulman

New member
Oct 22, 2012
10,966
Sompting
This is the first time the LibDems have had any power. The original Liberals were pushed out of the race by Labour. The Social Democrats were the moderate arm of Labour who walked out after a series of outrageous policies by a near Marxist Labour Party and set up on their own. Eventually they merged to create tha new party we see now. That is why, in reality, the LibDems are actually more socialist in many of their policies than Labour, who have chased the votes in the middle ground since Blair.

I should have said the Liberals, who were in power in the early 20th century..... it was just a remark to a poster who had gone right back to the 1940's and the NHS to champion the Liebour good points. :)
 








HovaGirl

I'll try a breakfast pie
Jul 16, 2009
3,139
West Hove
Er, had a little think and no, virtually all my friends and family are on less than that, I'm self employed and I was earning nearly £22 k a few years ago but I'll be lucky to make more than £14K this year.

You must be in the wrong job, then. I've had lots of builders and such round lately, and they charge about £120 a day. My son, on the other hand, earns £11,000 a year, but he is trying to do something about it by studying and hoping to change career.
 




HovaGirl

I'll try a breakfast pie
Jul 16, 2009
3,139
West Hove
Whilst this is a lovely story, on a human level do you honestly believe it's point to be true?

Do you honestly believe that tens, or hundreds, of thousands of highly paid workers are just going to up-sticks and move to a far flung tax haven away from their friends and family, away from the places that they grew up, away from the cultural wealth of the Great Britain, away from where their children go to school, away from where they are settled, comfortable and know they are safe and well protected, away from where they no doubt hold a fair amount of investments - all for the sake of a few thousands of pounds in tax? I don't.

It did happen. It was called the Brain Drain.
 




HovaGirl

I'll try a breakfast pie
Jul 16, 2009
3,139
West Hove
You mean like they ruined it in the 1940's, by setting up the NHS?

Sad.............................

That was a Liberal Party initiative from Beveridge, but it took until after the war for it to come about. And Labour reaped the glory.
 


soistes

Well-known member
Sep 12, 2012
2,652
Brighton
That was a Liberal Party initiative from Beveridge, but it took until after the war for it to come about. And Labour reaped the glory.

Don't rewrite history in the interests of your own ideology, like some Stalinist apparatchik

It was absolutely not a Liberal initiative.

Beveridge (who was at the time an academic economist, not a politician) was commissioned at the initiative of the Labour side in the wartime Tory-Labour coalition in 1941 to undertake a review of social insurance and welfare services. His report which, inter alia, recommended the setting up of the NHS, was then implemented after the war by the Labour Government.

The fact that Beveridge subsequently joined the Liberal party and was elected as an MP doesn't, by any stretch of a fevered imagination, make the NHS a "Liberal Party initiative".
The report was commissioned by a Labour minister in the wartime coalition (Arthur Greenwood), and was implemented by a Labour minister in a Labour Government (Nye Bevan).

And that's where the credit rightly lies.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here