• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Baroness Thatcher has died

Margaret Thatcher: Good or bad for the UK?

  • Good

    Votes: 35 29.4%
  • Bad

    Votes: 71 59.7%
  • Don't know/don't care

    Votes: 13 10.9%

  • Total voters
    119
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

4SRKT

Established Member
Joined
9 Jan 2009
Messages
4,409
4SRKT - the thing with greed is that it is one of the very worst traits of human nature, but human nature it is and you are naïve if you think otherwise.

One thing that the Blair years taught me was that it's every man for himself - we live in an imperfect world and as much as many may despise an 'I'm alright Jack' attitude, it does seem to be the one that prevails, and always has done long before Thatchers time or even before politics was even thought of as a concept.

Totally aware of this. It's the encouragement of greed and other vices that's the problem. Thatcher elevated greed from a vice to a virtue.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Mutant Lemming

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
3,191
Location
London
4SRKT - the thing with greed is that it is one of the very worst traits of human nature, but human nature it is and you are naïve if you think otherwise.

.

No such thing as 'human nature'. We live in controlled societies and those who control it can, in time, train anyone or anything to do what they believe to be right. There are certain religions and groups who espouse that greed is not good and as a continual mantra they end up believing it. We just get brainwashed by the admen instead.
 

Oswyntail

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
4,183
Location
Yorkshire
You seem to forget the 19 one day strikes by LU staff in 1989. ...
I confess I had, as I was thinking of BR. I think the point still stands, though.

...Unfortunate consequence of putting his objectionable and
Naive opinions on a public space....
Ivo is not the only one here guilty of putting "objectionable and naive opinions" around. The "Thatcher" bogeyman who deliberately and evilly destroyed the working classes is as much an objectionable and naive fantasy as the "Thatcher" saint who stood up for bulldog Britain. As I had often hoped to illustrate, the actions of the government at the time were as often as not inevitable reactions to their recent history and the actions of others; the consequences - disastrous in some areas, beneficial in others - were as much the result of history and economics as deliberately planned. One would have hoped that, after half a lifetime, we on the whole would have been able to have a calm and rational assessment of that period of British history. That we seem unable to is a savage criticism of those on both sides of the political spectrum.
 

4SRKT

Established Member
Joined
9 Jan 2009
Messages
4,409
Ivo is not the only one here guilty of putting "objectionable and naive opinions" around. The "Thatcher" bogeyman who deliberately and evilly destroyed the working classes is as much an objectionable and naive fantasy as the "Thatcher" saint who stood up for bulldog Britain. As I had often hoped to illustrate, the actions of the government at the time were as often as not inevitable reactions to their recent history and the actions of others; the consequences - disastrous in some areas, beneficial in others - were as much the result of history and economics as deliberately planned. One would have hoped that, after half a lifetime, we on the whole would have been able to have a calm and rational assessment of that period of British history. That we seem unable to is a savage criticism of those on both sides of the political spectrum.

You have missed the point of my post entirely.... ;)
 

Butts

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
11,824
Location
Stirlingshire
Many make much of the state of Britain before Thatcher - 3 day week etc but seem to gloss over the rioting on the streets of this country. The likes of which were never seen before. We were never that far from troops returning from the Falklands to patrol the streets of our own cities. Many just don't realise how disillusoned and disaffected a whole generation of people in parts of this country actually were. While many deride her own party about stabbing her in the back to get rid of her they may well have prevented this country from descending in to civil war.

The Three Day Week was actually during Ted Heath's Conservative Premiership (suprised you missed that :oops:)

You've hit the nail on the head with regards to "parts of the country"

Most people outside of the affected areas probably viewed them with the same disdain as they did the riots in London and other places in 2011. I would venture to suggest a lot of the people living in the areas subjected to rioting did not approve of it either as it quickly descends into looting much to the chargin of the genuine protesters.

Interesting to note there were no riots in Scotland in either period, although the closure of mines, steelworks , car plants and shipbuilding was as bad if not worse than anywhere else in the UK.
 

Mutant Lemming

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
3,191
Location
London
. That we seem unable to is a savage criticism of those on both sides of the political spectrum.

I'm afraid for many the 'wounds' are still raw and the gushing, sycophantic praise going over the top is tending to enflame the old hatreds.
A quiet Lincolnshire funeral with family may well have been ignored by most. A grand (and costly) affair in Central London is just asking for trouble.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,909
Location
Fenny Stratford
One would have hoped that, after half a lifetime, we on the whole would have been able to have a calm and rational assessment of that period of British history. That we seem unable to is a savage criticism of those on both sides of the political spectrum.

It is difficult to have a "calm and rational" assessment when you have seen people closest to you loose everything and obtain non of the benefit of these wonderful changes.

It is difficult to have a "calm and rational" debate using lovely statistics and bar charts when the personal memories are vivid and real. It is harder still when some people seem simply to dismiss those memories as being in some way flawed or simply a lie.

It is difficult to have a "calm and rational" debate when communities have never recovered from these changes and that those who prospered spend their time telling you that you are worthless because you refused to become one of them.

Finally, it is difficult to have a "calm and rational" debate when those on the right refuse to countenance any suggestion that these polices might not have been in the best interests of the majority, especially when what they really mean is that these polices were in the best interests of them!

I accept there were some polices that were beneficial to some of the country. I accept that the ideas should have been beneficial to many more. However, I think, as often with Conservatives, they failed to implement the policies in such a way as to extend that benefit to the majority. One example of this is the right to buy scheme.
 

Donny Dave

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2005
Messages
5,394
Location
Doncaster
So no. You aren't prepared to face the actual physical cost of these policies. Do you even acknowledge the suffering of other people, or is it all for the greater good? Was it, essentially, the fault of the "odd communities" such as mine that were destroyed? Could you ever acknowledge that the policies of Thatcher caused any of the problems? I find it strange right wingers will never do this.

Where as you seem to be unable to accept the fact that Margaret Thatcher did not set out to destroy the mining industry, but modernise it. Your seemingly also unable to accept the fact that by modernising industry, it was saving money which was then invested in other things, such as the railway. How many new trains were ordered and build in the 1980s?

So who was at fault for the decimation of the mining industry? Margaret Thatcher and her government for trying to modernise it, but getting things wrong once the strikes started, or Arthur Scargill and the NUM for refuse to enter talks about modernisation and calling miners out to strike?

While I am a Conservative voter, I don't fully agree with what Margaret Thatcher did while she was the Prime Minister, but I can understand her reasoning behind her actions.
 

Johnuk123

Established Member
Joined
19 Mar 2012
Messages
2,800
one Poster went as far as to
Enquire if my family would inform him of my death so he could
Organise a party.

You are unbelievable as in your mind it's perfectly correct to be dancing on a persons grave and calling them everything under the sun, on the day they died.

But if it was somebody doing the same to you it would be really out of order.

I reserve the right to be as nasty and horrible as you appear to be, you can't have it both ways.
 

4SRKT

Established Member
Joined
9 Jan 2009
Messages
4,409
You are unbelievable as in your mind it's perfectly correct to be dancing on a persons grave and calling them everything under the sun, on the day they died.

But if it was somebody doing the same to you it would be really out of order.

I reserve the right to be as nasty and horrible as you appear to be, you can't have it both ways.

You also have totally missed the point of my post! ;)

2-0 :)
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,909
Location
Fenny Stratford
Where as you seem to be unable to accept the fact that Margaret Thatcher did not set out to destroy the mining industry, but modernise it. Your seemingly also unable to accept the fact that by modernising industry, it was saving money which was then invested in other things, such as the railway. How many new trains were ordered and build in the 1980s?

So who was at fault for the decimation of the mining industry? Margaret Thatcher and her government for trying to modernise it, but getting things wrong once the strikes started, or Arthur Scargill and the NUM for refuse to enter talks about modernisation and calling miners out to strike?

While I am a Conservative voter, I don't fully agree with what Margaret Thatcher did while she was the Prime Minister, but I can understand her reasoning behind her actions.

Whilst i am sure that is the story you would like to believe i dont agree.

I think she wanted to break the working class way of life to ensure they could never challenge the authority of the government again. She wanted to reverse the humiliation of the Heath government and ensure a move from a more collective way of life to a more "freedom" based individualistic society.

The strike started after the government announced plans to close 20 pits turfing c.20000 men out of work. This was done without consultation and in defiance of the 1974 agreement between the government and the NUM. It was about job losses not modernisation.

As for Scargill, i have always considered him to be something bordering on a deranged lunatic. That said, he was right that they wanted to destroy an entire industry and way of life.

Perhaps the worst aspect of all this was that a strike in 1981 could have been won, hence why Thatcher gave in, regrouped, implemented the Ridley plan and fought back. The unions did not change despite being shown the Ridley plan in leaks!

By 1984 the increased productivity of the miners had been used to build up substantial coal reserve at power stations making a strike very hard to win.

(that is before you even consider the lack of a national ballot, the alteration of social security and the Nottinghamshire minors who worked through!)
 

Johnuk123

Established Member
Joined
19 Mar 2012
Messages
2,800
Where people have crossed the line is in actually celebrating her death. I mean, are we really that uncivilised as a nation? One of the people doing it on here I believe is a teacher as well - sir, you really ought to know better.

Teachers ! I married one, well a University lecturer actually.
I can confirm that generally they live in an airy fairy strange world of very questionable habits and entirely stupid ideas.

The last thing a school pupil should be exposed to is a modern day teacher.
 

12CSVT

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2010
Messages
2,611
Hmmm, doesn't Mr Blair have a heart condition? Not that I wish ill on him despite the damage he did to the Country in his time in power.

A heart condition doesn't mean you are at death's door. For example, the astronomer Patrick Moore had a heart condition in early childhood and lived until he was 89.
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,589
Location
Birmingham
Teachers ! I married one, well a University lecturer actually.
I can confirm that generally they live in an airy fairy strange world of very questionable habits and entirely stupid ideas.

The last thing a school pupil should be exposed to is a modern day teacher.

Let me guess, exams have been getting easier ever since you left school and were at a pinnacle of difficulty just as you were sitting yours :roll: Or are you uncomfortable with someone teaching something you disagree with?

I can understand people celebrating, she represents the worst time of their lives and the legacy of which they're still coping with. I wonder how many died as an indirect result of the destruction due to suicide or substance abuse or how many continue to live, forlorn and without hope - eking out an existence from day to day, applying for work they know won't come because someone wants to a few extra quid to store offshore and finding themselves on the receiving end of Tory vitriol: demonised as wilfully unemployed and without a voice to fight back.

Whilst I cannot condone celebrating her death I can certainly sympathise!
 

Butts

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
11,824
Location
Stirlingshire
Let me guess, exams have been getting easier ever since you left school and were at a pinnacle of difficulty just as you were sitting yours :roll: Or are you uncomfortable with someone teaching something you disagree with?

I can understand people celebrating, she represents the worst time of their lives and the legacy of which they're still coping with. I wonder how many died as an indirect result of the destruction due to suicide or substance abuse or how many continue to live, forlorn and without hope - eking out an existence from day to day, applying for work they know won't come because someone wants to a few extra quid to store offshore and finding themselves on the receiving end of Tory vitriol: demonised as wilfully unemployed and without a voice to fight back.Whilst I cannot condone celebrating her death I can certainly sympathise!

Blimey that sounds positively Dickensian !!!
 

Ferret

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2009
Messages
4,131
A heart condition doesn't mean you are at death's door. For example, the astronomer Patrick Moore had a heart condition in early childhood and lived until he was 89.

Oh no, but it possibly puts him at risk. But like I say, I don't wish an early death on the man and I certainly don't wish to see people dancing on his grave.

Incidentally, I just found a Guardian on the train I'm working and on page 6, there's a photo of revellers popping champagne bottles, one of whom is clearly younger than me and may not even have been alive in 1990, let alone beforehand to experience the Thatcher years. Deary me!

SS4 - exams did get easier - I remember when I came to sit mine in the 90s, and my Dad showing me his old school exam questions. Do you think I could answer them?! Could I hell!
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
I think she wanted to break the working class way of life to ensure they could never challenge the authority of the government again. She wanted to reverse the humiliation of the Heath government and ensure a move from a more collective way of life to a more "freedom" based individualistic society.

I tend to agree with this view. I think it is an entirely fair and reasonable conclusion that Thatcher and her government wanted to ensure that unions in the heavy industries, including the NUM, could neve rbrign down a government again.

And a lot of people at the time agreed with and supported that objective, though most of them probably didn't support the way it was carried out - the decimation of our traditional manufacturing base - or even realise that was what would happen.

The strike started after the government announced plans to close 20 pits turfing c.20000 men out of work. This was done without consultation and in defiance of the 1974 agreement between the government and the NUM. It was about job losses not modernisation.

That is correct. The tactics of the government were spot on. Force the union to begin industrial action by ignoring a previous agreement, having stockpiled a lot of coal to ensure no shortages, then employ all the powe rof the state and its media to portray the miners in the worst possible light.

As for Scargill, i have always considered him to be something bordering on a deranged lunatic. That said, he was right that they wanted to destroy an entire industry and way of life.

He was right, but the way he carried on made it much easier for the government to galvanise support and turn people against the miners cause. In short, his rhetoric did the men he represented no favours in the end.

I am no fan of Margaret Thatcher, but she and her advisers certainly did a good job of achieving what they set out to achieve.
 

Mutant Lemming

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
3,191
Location
London
It was indeed .....;)

As for the rest of my post ?

...it got lost in a time out.

As a government it is a sure indictment that you are getting it wrong when people take to the streets and riot. Whatever the rights and wrongs the government failed everyone during those riots - the disaffected who looked to violence as their only response to the apparent hopelessness, the general public for creating conditions which allowed such terrifying scenes on their streets and the police for failing to provide them with a proper strategy to deal with the situation.
I really thought I was going to see troops on the streets of this country and I think we were extremely close to that during the Poll tax riot.

The problem is we can argue points back and forth about Thatcher but those who love her will never sway and those who loathe her will never sway. It is going to be one of those things that people are going to have to keep quiet about in 'mixed' company down the pub for fear of starting a fight.
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,589
Location
Birmingham
Blimey that sounds positively Dickensian !!!

Never thought of it like that. The last clause is definitely true but perhaps someone with experience of life in the area could confirm whether or not it's hyperbole.

SS4 - exams did get easier - I remember when I came to sit mine in the 90s, and my Dad showing me his old school exam questions. Do you think I could answer them?! Could I hell!

Indeed, but I'd also say many kids have got brighter. It's just not helped by the lowest common denominator reporting abundant. I'd also say education is changing from a system where you'd learn facts to one where you learn how to get facts.


That is correct. The tactics of the government were spot on. Force the union to begin industrial action by ignoring a previous agreement, having stockpiled a lot of coal to ensure no shortages, then employ all the powe rof the state and its media to portray the miners in the worst possible light.

A tactic effective enough to have been used ever since. PCS being the target du jour

I am no fan of Margaret Thatcher, but she and her advisers certainly did a good job of achieving what they set out to achieve.

Spot on really
 

Butts

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
11,824
Location
Stirlingshire
I tend to agree with this view. I think it is an entirely fair and reasonable conclusion that Thatcher and her government wanted to ensure that unions in the heavy industries, including the NUM, could neve rbrign down a government again.

And a lot of people at the time agreed with and supported that objective, though most of them probably didn't support the way it was carried out - the decimation of our traditional manufacturing base - or even realise that was what would happen.

Perhaps if the Country had backed Edward Heath in February 1974 (as they very nearly did) all of this would have been moderated and handled in a far better manner at an earlier stage.
 

4SRKT

Established Member
Joined
9 Jan 2009
Messages
4,409
heard someone whistling "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" on a train today, in Wales, just thought I'd mention it <D

It'll be number one in the charts (that's the 'Hit Parade' if you're a Tory) by the weekend.

Perhaps if the Country had backed Edward Heath in February 1974 (as they very nearly did) all of this would have been moderated and handled in a far better manner at an earlier stage.

I'm sure you're right, but what ifs? are too easy a game to get sucked into.

I am no fan of Margaret Thatcher, but she and her advisers certainly did a good job of achieving what they set out to achieve.

I keep hearing this but I'm not really sure what it's supposed to convey. It seems a total platitude to me.

Teachers ! I married one, well a University lecturer actually.
I can confirm that generally they live in an airy fairy strange world of very questionable habits and entirely stupid ideas.

The last thing a school pupil should be exposed to is a modern day teacher.

Why did you marry one if you despise them so much?
 
Last edited:

Mutant Lemming

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
3,191
Location
London
You are unbelievable as in your mind it's perfectly correct to be dancing on a persons grave and calling them everything under the sun, on the day they died.

But if it was somebody doing the same to you it would be really out of order.

I reserve the right to be as nasty and horrible as you appear to be, you can't have it both ways.

I have unreservedly displayed my glee at her demise but then I recall her and her police lying regarding those who perished at Hillsborough and the anguish of familes who's loved ones were villifed and demonised by her press labelled as robbing corpses and urinating on "brave" cops.
It took the families 23 years of heartache and anguish to get to the truth and you wonder why some people celebrate ?
I think that is far far more horrible than celebrating her death.

Was she sympathetic to those who bought their council house, only to lose their job, then their home and end up in cramped B & B's because all the council houses had been sold ?

Was she sypmathetic to my friend who went out of business when supermarkets bought out petrol station concessions while independent garages were prevented from competing by selling food?
 

ralphchadkirk

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
5,754
Location
Essex
Let me guess, exams have been getting easier ever since you left school and were at a pinnacle of difficulty just as you were sitting yours :roll: Or are you uncomfortable with someone teaching something you disagree with?

I always find it amusing how people assume it must be the dyed-in-the-wool working class tea drinking man on the clapham omnibus must have more common sense than everyone else, who simply lives in an ivory tower.

The same people often equate common sense with "agreeing with me".
 

Butts

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
11,824
Location
Stirlingshire
Was she sympathetic to those who bought their council house, only to lose their job, then their home and end up in cramped B & B's because all the council houses had been sold ?

Would they not have been able to claim Housing Benefit and remain in their Council House if out of work ?

Was she sypmathetic to my friend who went out of business when supermarkets bought out petrol station concessions while independent garages were prevented from competing by selling food?

There was nothing to stop Consumers continuing to patronise their local filling station unless price was their sole motivation

You should move up here or to Wales where society is more egalitarian than in England , I think you would be surrounded by those of a similar political ilk :p
 

4SRKT

Established Member
Joined
9 Jan 2009
Messages
4,409
There was nothing to stop Consumers continuing to patronise their local filling station unless price was their sole motivation

You should move up here or to Wales where society is more egalitarian than in England , I think you would be surrounded by those of a similar political ilk :p

Can't do that. We all have to stay to ensure that the posho Toryboys and rednecks don't have England all for themselves. Anyway it's our country as much as theirs.

Who remembers right wing wingnuts shouting "Get back to Russia" at CND marchers? Because of course Russia is EXACTLY the sort of place someone who is anti-nuclear would live.....

That's one of the great things about Right wing economics. You don't really have to think about society can be improved; you just 'leave it to the market'. It means that fundamentally stooopid people can feel clever saying something political but not challenging ;)
 

Mutant Lemming

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
3,191
Location
London
There was nothing to stop Consumers continuing to patronise their local filling station unless price was their sole motivation

:p

The supermarket petrol stations could sell food and other items he was not allowed to - basically unfair competition. So a mixture of price and convenience of being able to buy a wider range of items which, at that time, he was prevented form doing so. In order to charge the same as the supermarket he would have had to sell at a 4p a litre loss. Pretty much game over has it has been for a lot of small businesses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top