Margaret Thatcher was she really that bad?

Dubhlinner

Nodin wrote: »

...which rather ignores the fact that Adams had favoured a political solution as far back as the early 70's, as is well known within Republican circles.

How does it ignore it? any political solution Adams favoured back then did not in any way resemble the good friday agreement. As he stated in older editions of his books

"No Irish nationalist could support any treaty which institutionalizes British government claims to a part of Irish national territory. Indeed, the term - 'constitutional nationalism'- used by Mr.Mallon (SDLP) and his colleagues to describe their political philosophy is a contradiction in terms. The only constitutional nationalist in Ireland today is Sean McBride. He puts his nationalism within a framework of Irish constitutionality. Mr. Mallon, however, puts his within the framework of British constitutionality. Irish nationalism within British constitutionality is a contradiction in terms."

- Gerry Adams, 1986
("The Politics of Irish Freedom", Gerry Adams, Brandon Book Publishers, Ltd., Dingle, County Kerry, Ireland 1986, page 112, lines 26-35. NOTE: REMOVED FROM 1995 and1996 EDITIONS)

also i 1984 ""There can be no such things as an Irish nationalist accepting the loyalist veto and partition. You cannot claim to be an Irish nationalist if you consent to an internal six county settlement and if you are willing to negotiate the state of Irish society with a foreign government."

Nodin

Dubhlinner wrote: »

How does it ignore it? any political solution Adams favoured back then did not in any way resemble the good friday agreement. As he stated in older editions of his books

.....was he in favour of a political solution, yes he was. Did his concept of what was acceptable change over time? Evidently it did. Or perhaps he let be known what was palatable at the time.

Are you criticising Adams for not adopting an 'all or nothing' position?

Dubhlinner

Nodin wrote: »

.....was he in favour of a political solution, yes he was. Did his concept of what was acceptable change over time? Evidently it did. Or perhaps he let be known what was palatable at the time.

but obviously they couldn't bring that kind politics into the political mainstream is the point.

Back then he wouldn't have been able to influence the IRA. However after the H-Block election results republicans in general were more accepting of politics over militancy. They ran in the next Irish general election after Adams became president in 1983

Are you criticising Adams for not adopting an 'all or nothing' position?

I'm not criticising him for that no. But i would criticise him for being an unrepentant hypocrite of the highest order for not admitting the SDLP were right and he was wrong.

Nodin

Dubhlinner wrote: »

but obviously they couldn't bring that kind politics into the political mainstream is the point. .

.....but they did. It just wasn't possible to force an agreement on those terms.

Dubhlinner wrote: »

I'm not criticising him for that no. But i would criticise him for being an unrepentant hypocrite of the highest order for not admitting the SDLP were right and he was wrong.

Humes bleating shite for 30 years changed sweet fuck all, except divide the nationalist community. There was virtually no move on sectarianism, reform of the police, the UDR, parades, jobs, the UDA - nada. The fact of the matter is that whether anyone likes it or not it took armed action to get any traction - which is far more a condemnation of those in power than those who took up arms.

Pedant

Nodin wrote: »

One of the reasons I never really warmed to communists (when they used be around) was that whenever you pointed out some completly unnessecary suffering caused by a policy, they would answer with some bit of semi-flowery rhetoric or other. It's a 'tactic' that doesn't improve when used by the right.

The welfare of the people....that's supposed to be important.

Yes. The welfare of the people would be much better if the state was separated entirely from the economy. Austrian economics is foolproof.

Pedant

Biggins wrote: »

Good riddance to the bitch and when she is gone, I'll crack open a bottle of champaign I have in my fridge!

Pretty horrible thing to say about someone who's suffering from dementia.

Nodin

Pedant wrote: »

Yes. The welfare of the people would be much better if the state was separated entirely from the economy. Austrian economics is foolproof.

...and yet more of the same. Lovely. That'll fix an unemployment/heroin 'black spot' allright.

Pedant wrote: »

Pretty horrible thing to say about someone who's suffering from dementia..

Compared to the sentiments of many who suffered via her policies, it's mild.

As the damage is done and she is no longer active in politics, her fate is at this stage irrelevant. As death claims us all, its hardly a "win" when it eventually comes for her.

Fenian Army

Pedant wrote: »

Pretty horrible thing to say about someone who's suffering from dementia.

She is a pretty horrible person.

Pedant

Nodin wrote: »

...and yet more of the same. Lovely. That'll fix an unemployment/heroin 'black spot' allright.

It's simple really. It's impossible for businesses to grow in Ireland because they're choked by taxes and rates. This in turn prevents the business (be they small or large) from creating more jobs as the business will not be able to expand, this is particularly the case for small businesses. The only businesses that seem to make it through the net are those who are powerful/rich enough to lobby politicians and convince them to introduce tax breaks/incentives for their particular business or industry. Socialism or state capitalism will not reduce the number of people unemployed and increase the amount of people employed in the private sector.

Large scale state intervention in the economy creates inequality in the market. This is a point argued over and over again by leading economists such as Hayek and Von Mises and they have been proved right over and over again. Hayek argued that such intervention only accentuates the natural business cycle leading to booms and busts of greater magnitude (an argument that fits well when looking at the recent economic crisis). State intervention also leads to monopolies - the vast majority of monopolies throughout history have been coercive monopolies; those sponsored by states via tax incentives, special regulations, subsidies, franchises, etc.. (a point argued by Ayn Rand).

Biggins

Pedant wrote: »

Pretty horrible thing to say about someone who's suffering from dementia.

Stuff her. She drove others mental, some in probably to sadly killing themselves also I suspect!
A few of her victims were good friends of mine in Lancs, England at the time of her seat in power!

Pedant

Biggins wrote: »

Stuff her. She drove others mental, in probably some to sadly killing themselves also I suspect!

It was all Old Labour's fault, not Thatchers. Old Labour are the party that planted the seeds, Old Labour are the ones who brought the UK to the IMF.

Nodin

Pedant wrote: »

It's simple (........) by Ayn Rand).

None of that guff really has any bearing on the hardship caused by Thatcher though, because it happened, and is still on-going in parts. You soapbox away with your libertarian/right wing waffle though. Somebody somewhere may actually give a crap.

Biggins

Pedant wrote: »

It was all Old Labour's fault, not Thatchers. Old Labour are the party that planted the seeds, Old Labour are the ones who brought the UK to the IMF.

O' for gods sake, get those rose tinted glasses cleaned.
Yes, they held a gun to her mental head and made her do all the schite she did!
What utter stupidity in using that poor miserable excuse!

Pedant

Nodin wrote: »

None of that guff really has any bearing on the hardship caused by Thatcher though, because it happened, and is still on-going in parts. You soapbox away with your libertarian/right wing waffle though. Somebody somewhere may actually give a crap.

Typical commie response, doesn't address the facts only mindless emotion. Libertarians predicted the last economic crisis.

Pedant

Biggins wrote: »

O' for gods sake, get those rose tinted glasses cleaned.
Yes, they held a gun to her mental head and made her do all the schite she did!
What utter stupidity in using that poor miserable excuse!

Old Labour blew the place up and Thatcher spent the most part of the 1980s trying to clean up their mess.

Nodin

Pedant wrote: »

Typical commie response, .....

Really? And this accusation is based on what, exactly?

Pedant wrote: »

doesn't address the facts only mindless emotion.....

So theres no such thing as economic hardship, deprivation and associated suffering?

Biggins

Pedant wrote: »

Old Labour blew the place up and Thatcher spent the most part of the 1980s trying to clean up their mess.

...And in also trying to clean up a mess as she perceived it, she instead made things worse!
To use an analogy, instead of just using a nut cracker to crack a nut, she used a wrecking ball - repeatedly!

Fratton Fred

Biggins wrote: »

O' for gods sake, get those rose tinted glasses cleaned.
Yes, they held a gun to her mental head and made her do all the schite she did!
What utter stupidity in using that poor miserable excuse!

No, it was the unions, running riot under a useless labour government that were holding a gun to the nation's head

Pedant

Nodin wrote: »

So theres no such thing as economic hardship, deprivation and associated suffering?

Yes, the economic hardship and deprivation caused by Old Labour.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, it was the unions, running riot under a useless labour government that were holding a gun to the nation's head

...which, even if true, is hardly an excuse for what Thatcher did.

Biggins

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, it was the unions, running riot under a useless labour government that were holding a gun to the nation's head

Biggins wrote: »

...And in also trying to clean up a mess as she perceived it, she instead made things worse!
To use an analogy, instead of just using a nut cracker to crack a nut, she used a wrecking ball - repeatedly!

Same reply.

Nodin

Pedant wrote: »

Yes, the economic hardship and deprivation caused by Old Labour.

Yet again I'm devastated by your grasp of the macro-economics of the era and their social ramifications.

Do please explain to me how "old labour" was responsible for creating the economic "black spots" that followed the closure of the mines in wales.

golden lane

thatcher saved the uk from the destructive unions......but she did it too fast.......

what she did most was....give the people of the uk faith in the future.....yes it was going rapidly down the drain......

with regard to people who suffered......;yes there were many, and many who gained a lot.....just like ireland at the present time.....

Nodin

LordSutch wrote:

And the alternatives to Mrs Thatch were .....

golden lane wrote: »

thatcher saved the uk from the destructive unions......but she did it too fast.......

what she did most was....give the people of the uk faith in the future.....

And now we've a southern unionist and a comedian in the mix. Deadly.

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

And the alternatives to Mrs Thatch were . . .
.....

Michael Foot and the Sun?

golden lane

Nodin wrote: »

And now we've a comedian in the mix. Deadly.

so you know everything......have you had the oppertunity to spend the money that was made in the eighties.......by millions..........or are you just jealous....

LordSutch

And the alternatives to Mrs Thatch were . . .
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/James_Callaghan.JPG/220px-James_Callaghan.JPG
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSNbU8KRX0s2Q3bzuV4KfPKGE7BVX1boFJcRzeVTFP3kFr9vMf6
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Sunkinnock.jpg

Anyone else remember the winter of discontent in 79?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/30/article-1270193-0051205600000258-428_468x297.jpg

Biggins

golden lane wrote: »

thatcher saved the uk from the destructive unions......but she did it too fast.......

what she did most was....give the people of the uk faith in the future...

:pac:

I take it your trying to be funny?

To repeat part of a previous post I made:

* Rather than stimulating the economy through investment and tax cuts, she tried to control the amount of money in circulation. Mrs Thatcher thought this would reduce inflation from its 1979 level of 10.3%. It didn't. Inflation doubled within a year and only fell to present day levels of 2-3% in 1986.

By this point, the damage had been done. To get to such a low level, indirect taxes had been hiked (VAT rose from 8% to 15%), as had interest rates (topping 17%). Subsidies for industry were reduced. The result was a massive rise in unemployment from 1.4m in 1979 to 3.5m by 1982, or one in eight people out of work.

* Long-term unemployment blighted an entire generation in Northern Ireland (where 20% of people were left out of work), Scotland and the NE and NW of England (16%).

* ...She also left it in recession, with unemployment, inflation and interest rates rising.
Above all, not only was she bad for the country during her premiership, she continues to be bad for the country today. The causes of the present slump - unrestricted credit, deregulation and too much financial speculation - all date back to the 1980s. No successive government dared reverse these decisions: a blessing to her legacy, but a curse we must now all share.
Source: http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.a...ntid=150369015

* Poll Tax

* Miner's Strike

* Abolished free school meals for all children that many she put on the breadline!

* Abolished free school milk for Englands kids that many she put on the breadline!

* Stirred up more trouble between England and Ireland.

* 2 recessions in her tenure

* In breaking the unions - she left the working class with no voice in their workplace, stuck and either accept their lot or lose their job!

* 4 million unemployed

* 15% inflation

* Record house repossessions

* Record business closures

* Record bankruptcies

* She destroyed whole communities forever in her crusade against socialism and gave away £billions to the City and Corporations in another insane system, the trickle down! She frankly did more damage to British industry than the Luftwaffe did in the second world war its often joked about with sad consequences!
Any prosperity Thatcher brought was selective, antagonistic to all and temporary. She did leave her favoured parts of Britain “better” as she saw it, but only for some!

Gave them faith? I lived in England at the time and travelling around the country with work only found that she only have them bills - despair and further reason continuously for more hatred of her!

golden lane

LordSutch wrote: »

And the alternatives to Mrs Thatch were . . .
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/James_Callaghan.JPG/220px-James_Callaghan.JPG
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSNbU8KRX0s2Q3bzuV4KfPKGE7BVX1boFJcRzeVTFP3kFr9vMf6
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Sunkinnock.jpg

Anyone else remember the winter of discontent in 79?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/30/article-1270193-0051205600000258-428_468x297.jpg[/QUOTE]

30 million people, i should think......

Pedant

Nodin wrote: »

Yet again I'm devastated by your grasp of the macro-economics of the era and their social ramifications.

Do please explain to me how "old labour" was responsible for creating the economic "black spots" that followed the closure of the mines in wales.

The closure of the mines was absolutely justified. Why should the government rap up debt by keeping those totally economically nonviable pits. Keeping them open would have only worsened the national debt in the long term. The "social ramifications" are something that should have been considered when investing in these industries in the first place. They had to be closed at some point or another.

Fratton Fred

Biggins wrote: »

:pac:

I take it your trying to be funny?

To repeat part of a previous post I made:



Gave them faith? I lived in England at the time and travelling around the country with work only found that she only have them bills - despair and further reason continuously for more hatred of her!

She changed the entire system. It went from wage caps being used as an attempt to control inflation, to interest rates.

Current practice (and the low inflation rate) would suggest it was the right move.

Biggins

Fratton Fred wrote: »

She changed the entire system. It went from wage caps being used as an attempt to control inflation, to interest rates.

Current practice (and the low inflation rate) would suggest it was the right move.

Current practice might be good - but that don't excuse the way SHE did things then and the utter devastation she left behind in her wrath upon various classes she appeared to dislike intently.

Nodin

With you in a mo, I just have to tick the "Probably Taking The Piss" box.

Pedant wrote: »

The closure of the mines was absolutely justified. Why should the government rap up debt by keeping those totally economically nonviable pits. Keeping them open would have only worsened the national debt in the long term. The "social ramifications" are something that should have been considered when investing in these industries in the first place. They had to be closed at some point or another.

Yes, you are correct, and I utterly in error. Those in the late 1700's - mid 1800's who expanded mining should have used their time portal to far better effect. Thatcher was in no way responsible for their efforts in her part of the time/space continuum. Once again, Sir, you have me at an advantage.

Ouchette

Stone cold, heartless bitch. But at least she never pretended to be anything else - unlike the current lot who like to act as if they're your mate with their 'Call me Dave' and 'All in this together' soundbites, before screwing you over.

She did do some stuff that needed doing though, even if she didn't go about it very well.

golden lane

Nodin wrote: »

And now we've a southern unionist and a comedian in the mix. Deadly.

wrong in the first.......right in the second.......

it was hilarious to spend all the money that was made.........and look at the gobshoite arthur scargill trying to run the country........

Nodin

golden lane wrote: »

wrong in the first.....

As I wasn't referring to you, I was in fact right.

golden lane wrote: »

....right in the second...............

I know.

golden lane wrote: »

it was hilarious to spend all the money that was made......

Don't break any stereotypes, whatever you do.

golden lane wrote: »

and look at the gobshoite arthur scargill trying to run the country........

Yes, the Scargill regime was one of the least noteworthy administrations of modern times. You'd be suprised at how many people don't even know he ran the country at all.

Pedant

Nodin wrote: »

With you in a mo, I just have to tick the "Probably Taking The Piss" box.



Yes, you are correct, and I utterly in error. Those in the late 1700's - mid 1800's who expanded mining should have used their time portal to far better effect. Thatcher was in no way responsible for their efforts in her part of the time/space continuum. Once again, Sir, you have me at an advantage.

So what would you have proposed? Keeping the mines open forever even though alternative fuels were becoming more popular (nuclear, oil, gas, etc..)? Did they think the amount of coal in the ground could have lasted forever? The government under Labour kept investing in these industries at the behest of their Union paymasters even though it was apparent that coal was becoming steadily obsolete as a fuel source. Every industry carries with it a degree of intrinsic obsolescence.

Nodin

Pedant wrote: »

So what would you have proposed? ........

Did you bother reading the thread? I'd say not.

golden lane

Nodin wrote: »

As I wasn't referring to you, I was in fact right.



I know.



Don't break any stereotypes, whatever you do.




Yes, the Scargill regime was one of the least noteworthy administrations of modern times. You'd be suprised at how many people don't even know he ran the country at all.

he ran the mining industry into the ground....excuse the pun.......

just like an oxo....but a laughing stock...

Pedant

Nodin wrote: »

Did you bother reading the thread? I'd say not.

So far all I've read from you is nonsense derived from your lack of understand of economics, let alone your understanding of the laws of physics - nothing lasts forever.

Nodin

golden lane wrote: »

he ran the mining industry into the ground...

O, so he didn't run the country then? Excellent.

As has been pointed out, the mining industry worldwide was in decline, so its position in fact it had nothing to do with Scargill. One could argue with the way he ran the strike, but the fact is that the industry was controlled by the Government.

Nodin

Pedant wrote: »

So far all I've read from you is nonsense derived from your lack of understand of economics, let alone your understanding of the laws of physics - nothing lasts forever.

You didn't read the thread then. Well, suffice to say I've already outlined what I thought should have happened. I'll throw in a spoiler and say that it doesn't involved going back through time to the 1700's and interrupting my betters by exclaiming 'There'll be trouble at 'pit'.

golden lane

Nodin wrote: »

O, so he didn't run the country then? Excellent.

As has been pointed out, the mining industry worldwide was in decline, so its position in fact it had nothing to do with Scargill. One could argue with the way he ran the strike, but the fact is that the industry was controlled by the Government.

and right it should be......but the poor miners followed the pied piper,(scargill)

Pedant

Nodin wrote: »

You didn't read the thread then. Well, suffice to say I've already outlined what I thought should have happened. I'll throw in a spoiler and say that it doesn't involved going back through time to the 1700's and interrupting my betters by exclaiming 'There'll be trouble at 'pit'.

Maybe a link to your grand alternate solution to the coal mine strikes in this thread? I don't have the time to read back on this entire thread.

Biggins

golden lane wrote: »

and right it should be......but the poor miners followed the pied piper,(scargill)

Who do you suggest they should have followed instead? Was there anyone else in their union at the time that had the unity Scargil had?

What were they supposed to do? Follow Thatcher blindly like the sheep we have today that still follow FF and co, into utter devastation again and again?

Those struggling under the cow and her over-reactions (in order to pursue her own particular agenda), at a time of crises, reached out for any helping and supporting hand where it was available.
There sure wasn't a helping hand coming from Thatcher!

Nodin

golden lane wrote: »

and right it should be......but the poor miners followed the pied piper,(scargill)

Yes, they should have waited on the loving bosom of Thatcher.

golden lane

Biggins wrote: »

Who do you suggest they should have followed instead? Was there anyone else in their union at the time that had the unity Scargil had?

What were they supposed to do? Follow Thatcher blindly like the sheep we have today that still follow FF and co, into utter devastation again and again?

Those struggling under the cow and her over-reactions (in order to pursue her own particular agenda), at a time of crises, reached out for any helping and supporting hand where it was available.
There sure wasn't a helping hand coming from Thatcher!

why would anybody want to help the miners........their job was no more important than any other job.........they did what they did...for themselves.....

they were rewarded with big payouts in most cases......

Nodin

Pedant wrote: »

Maybe a link to your grand alternate solution to the coal mine strikes in this thread? I don't have the time to read back on this entire thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78220821&postcount=194

Nodin

golden lane wrote: »

why would anybody want to help the miners........their job was no more important than any other job.........they did what they did...for themselves.....

they were rewarded with big payouts in most cases......

Do you work with the poor? You seem to have great empathy with the less fortunate.

This organisation was set up - doubtless with some of those "big payouts" - to help those living in the party hotspots where the pits used be.

http://www.coalfields-regen.org.uk/

Biggins

golden lane wrote: »

why would anybody want to help the miners........their job was no more important than any other job.........they did what they did...for themselves.....

they were rewarded with big payouts in most cases......

Their job was no LESS important either!
Their jobs and the devastation of their loss, that was caused in one Thatcher swoop like a wrecking ball through entire communities and related connect primary, secondary and tertiary industries, made those jobs just as important as other in the country! No more - but certainly NO LESS!

...But the conveniently blind are willing to overlook such connecting effects - or just don't want to voice them in case it might upset their rosy vision they have of a truly rotten woman.