Do I Message Him Or Let Him Message Me?
Family & Relationships4 mins ago
Ok as the Lady is back in the News section.....
I asked this before but although I got the usual lefty vitriol, no one gave me and alternative to what was done:
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question53 4888.html
I ask again lefties, what would you have done in 1979 with the country in the state it was it, simple enough question, let's have your answers.
To those younger ones who hate her, did you form your own opinion or where you brainwashed by left teachers against our greatest peace time leader.
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question53 4888.html
I ask again lefties, what would you have done in 1979 with the country in the state it was it, simple enough question, let's have your answers.
To those younger ones who hate her, did you form your own opinion or where you brainwashed by left teachers against our greatest peace time leader.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Loosehead. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I ask again lefties, what would you have done in 1979 with the country in the state it was it, simple enough question,
Simple enough question?
Do you have any understanding of the countries economic cycle? How about the implications of joining the common market?
What are the implications of putting a penny on income tax or reducing VAT by 1/2%?
What would happen if five companies announced 5000 job cuts?
What are the implications of not funding the police, armed services etc to the level that they wish.
What are the implications of privatising the utilities?
There are almost 1/2 million civil servants in this country whose role is to help the government develop strategies and implement them.
the government would have a 1000s of people feeding in and giving factual statistics and hundreds of advisers.
But you think this is a 'simple question'.
Simple enough question?
Do you have any understanding of the countries economic cycle? How about the implications of joining the common market?
What are the implications of putting a penny on income tax or reducing VAT by 1/2%?
What would happen if five companies announced 5000 job cuts?
What are the implications of not funding the police, armed services etc to the level that they wish.
What are the implications of privatising the utilities?
There are almost 1/2 million civil servants in this country whose role is to help the government develop strategies and implement them.
the government would have a 1000s of people feeding in and giving factual statistics and hundreds of advisers.
But you think this is a 'simple question'.
I'm not looking for detailed manifesto vic, just a general approach. All the lefties seem to hate what MrsT did but offer no alternative. For example how would you address these problems:
- Vast overmanning
- huge inneficient public sector industries
- Out of control Unon power
- Crippling strikes and social unrest
- "sick man of europe"
etc etc.
- Vast overmanning
- huge inneficient public sector industries
- Out of control Unon power
- Crippling strikes and social unrest
- "sick man of europe"
etc etc.
Loosehead
The most valuable commodity in economics is hidesight. It's priceless.
But let me have a go - 1979...I would have introduced laws to limit the powers of the unions, the same as what the Thatcher government did.
I would've pumped money from the sale of Britsh Telecom, British Gas etc into regenerating the inner cities of the north and midlands, encouraging light industry and foreign investment...which is what Thatcher didn't do.
The money from the sale of these national assets instead went into reducing taxes, much of which bypassed the poorest workers. (But that was really during the second term, not the first).
I would have ensured that the profits from the sale of council houses was ploughed back into the building of new social housing schemes...part public owned, part state owned.
Can you imagine how much better off those on low incomes would be now if the housing stock had all those sorely needed council houses!
The most valuable commodity in economics is hidesight. It's priceless.
But let me have a go - 1979...I would have introduced laws to limit the powers of the unions, the same as what the Thatcher government did.
I would've pumped money from the sale of Britsh Telecom, British Gas etc into regenerating the inner cities of the north and midlands, encouraging light industry and foreign investment...which is what Thatcher didn't do.
The money from the sale of these national assets instead went into reducing taxes, much of which bypassed the poorest workers. (But that was really during the second term, not the first).
I would have ensured that the profits from the sale of council houses was ploughed back into the building of new social housing schemes...part public owned, part state owned.
Can you imagine how much better off those on low incomes would be now if the housing stock had all those sorely needed council houses!
thanks sp that's a start, that's what I'm after some constructive ideas rather than rabid sound bites. <br />
<br />
so presumably you agreed with what happenned with the coal/steel etc and privatisation just disagree with what to spend the money on. <br />
<br />
Do you think the mining industry was savable or was it just a matter of time, after all is was costing millions a week just to placate the miners. <br />
<br />
Do you agree that there was vast overmanning caused mainly by the almost impossibility of laying anyone off? how would you have dealt with that? Traditional anti Thatcherites moan about the unemployment that resulted whilst refusing to acknowledge that those jobs where not in fact real in the first place. <br />
<br />
You get broad statements of the kind: <br />
"She destryoyed manufacturing in the country" whilst totally ignoring the fact that pretty much any item was made better and cheaper elsewhere. So really they where saying "she refused to use public money to save our jobs for the sake of saving our jobs". Essentially she get's slagged off for not being a solcialist protectionist. <br />
what's your view on that?
-- answer removed --
Loosehead
The problems facing the country in the 1970s were directly attributable to attitudes of governments (both Labour and Tory) going back to the 50s.
The trade unions had split into many different factions over the decades, making collective bargaining incredibly difficult.
The problem that Thatcher introduced is that she allowed the pendulum to swing too far in the opposite direction - in favour of employers. I'm sure we wouldn't have had to introduce the minimum wage if management and unions were able to work together, but by the 80s, the unions were largely toothless anarchonisms (Mis-spelled? Probably).
Thatcher was largely successful in curbing the powers of the unions...however, let's not get carried away - whilst ecomonic problems were addressed, social problems which should always be at the heart of the government agenda were left to fester.
No matter how 'Rightist' you are, the effects of the miners strike, Brixton/Toxteth/Poll Tax riots can't be ignored.
...for the first time ever Britain stopped being one cohesive society.
In fact, didn't La Thatch once say that "they're no such thing as society"?
Admittedly, that may have been during her third term when she was, frankly, as mad as a bag full of monkeys.
The problems facing the country in the 1970s were directly attributable to attitudes of governments (both Labour and Tory) going back to the 50s.
The trade unions had split into many different factions over the decades, making collective bargaining incredibly difficult.
The problem that Thatcher introduced is that she allowed the pendulum to swing too far in the opposite direction - in favour of employers. I'm sure we wouldn't have had to introduce the minimum wage if management and unions were able to work together, but by the 80s, the unions were largely toothless anarchonisms (Mis-spelled? Probably).
Thatcher was largely successful in curbing the powers of the unions...however, let's not get carried away - whilst ecomonic problems were addressed, social problems which should always be at the heart of the government agenda were left to fester.
No matter how 'Rightist' you are, the effects of the miners strike, Brixton/Toxteth/Poll Tax riots can't be ignored.
...for the first time ever Britain stopped being one cohesive society.
In fact, didn't La Thatch once say that "they're no such thing as society"?
Admittedly, that may have been during her third term when she was, frankly, as mad as a bag full of monkeys.
Loosehead
Okay...this is going to get very detailed, but the crux of the problem was that in 1979, the Tory party were taking over a country which was on it's knees.
But there was an alternative economic solution - and I hope I'll do this justice here...
In order to minimise the number of people losing their jobs in coal and steel, it we should have unprotected the pound.
This is something the Tories did in later years, but it could've worked in '79 too (value of hindsight and all that).
A lower valued � would've been a boon to exports...but this is the bit we don't/can't know - to where would we export our raw materials (coal, North Sea Oil), and would we want to export raw materials (apparently, real money comes from 'adding value' to base materials).
I would've used the money coming in from North Sea Oil (a hidden cash cow for the early Tory administration), to fund the privatisation of the mines.
Yep...I'd bribe the miners to take over their own pits. If you take the pits out of public ownership and let management run them in conjunction with the unions, then you don't have the worry of the public purse being used like some giant piggy bank to fund financial shortfalls.
That would've been a more sensible approach. However, Thatcher liked a fight...it was always going to happen.
But back to your question about overmanning...I dunno. I have absolutely no idea how to transform an industry whilsy simultaneously minimising the social impact of modernising that industry.
In that, I have something in common with the Tories.
Okay...this is going to get very detailed, but the crux of the problem was that in 1979, the Tory party were taking over a country which was on it's knees.
But there was an alternative economic solution - and I hope I'll do this justice here...
In order to minimise the number of people losing their jobs in coal and steel, it we should have unprotected the pound.
This is something the Tories did in later years, but it could've worked in '79 too (value of hindsight and all that).
A lower valued � would've been a boon to exports...but this is the bit we don't/can't know - to where would we export our raw materials (coal, North Sea Oil), and would we want to export raw materials (apparently, real money comes from 'adding value' to base materials).
I would've used the money coming in from North Sea Oil (a hidden cash cow for the early Tory administration), to fund the privatisation of the mines.
Yep...I'd bribe the miners to take over their own pits. If you take the pits out of public ownership and let management run them in conjunction with the unions, then you don't have the worry of the public purse being used like some giant piggy bank to fund financial shortfalls.
That would've been a more sensible approach. However, Thatcher liked a fight...it was always going to happen.
But back to your question about overmanning...I dunno. I have absolutely no idea how to transform an industry whilsy simultaneously minimising the social impact of modernising that industry.
In that, I have something in common with the Tories.
1/ Brought about peace in Northern Ireland - as Blair did
2/ Given independence to the Bank of England - As Brown did.
3/ Not taken away right of abode in the UK from UK teritories - precipitating the Falklands war
4/ Introduced legislation to prevent companies investing their employees pension funds into their own companies so that Maxwell and his mates couldn't rob every one blind.
5/ Reformed the rates via a mechanism taking into account people's ability to pay
6/ Not entered into the Trident agreement and invested the billions of pounds into UK industry and focussed on tactical nuclear weapons. (This is making assumptions that what we know now about USSR military capability at the time was known then but secret)
To throw you a bone I probably would have introduced legislation on the secret ballot and secondary picketing in the unions.
However I note that no politician thinks that the secret ballot should be introduced in parliament
2/ Given independence to the Bank of England - As Brown did.
3/ Not taken away right of abode in the UK from UK teritories - precipitating the Falklands war
4/ Introduced legislation to prevent companies investing their employees pension funds into their own companies so that Maxwell and his mates couldn't rob every one blind.
5/ Reformed the rates via a mechanism taking into account people's ability to pay
6/ Not entered into the Trident agreement and invested the billions of pounds into UK industry and focussed on tactical nuclear weapons. (This is making assumptions that what we know now about USSR military capability at the time was known then but secret)
To throw you a bone I probably would have introduced legislation on the secret ballot and secondary picketing in the unions.
However I note that no politician thinks that the secret ballot should be introduced in parliament
JTP I like that last point about the secret ballot in Parliament.
Given that other countries in the E.E.C had interventionist policies perhaps it would've been better for all if she'd gotten the other countries to follow suit rather than our privatising thing unilaterally?
Of course that's assuming other governments would be willn to disenfranchise a huge swathe of it's electorate.
Given that other countries in the E.E.C had interventionist policies perhaps it would've been better for all if she'd gotten the other countries to follow suit rather than our privatising thing unilaterally?
Of course that's assuming other governments would be willn to disenfranchise a huge swathe of it's electorate.
Jake - The conservatives were in constant talks with the Irish and did a lot to help create peace there. TB was just the end of a long process.
With regards the independence of the Bank of England, the Lib Dems had been saying that in their Manifesto since 1992 and in 1996 (year before TB / GB took power) there was private members bill from a conservative mp which labour did not support (obviously wanting to take credit for themselves).
With regards the independence of the Bank of England, the Lib Dems had been saying that in their Manifesto since 1992 and in 1996 (year before TB / GB took power) there was private members bill from a conservative mp which labour did not support (obviously wanting to take credit for themselves).
TB was at the end of a long process but it was not one that Margaret Thatcher helped.
Remember denying terrorists the oxygen of publicity?
Film of Gerry Adams while his voice was spoken by an actor - what a farce!
Major helped a bit but it neede a change of government to one that would be brave enough to offer concessions like the release of certain prisoners to bring it about.
For so many reasons this could never have happened under a Tory government
Remember denying terrorists the oxygen of publicity?
Film of Gerry Adams while his voice was spoken by an actor - what a farce!
Major helped a bit but it neede a change of government to one that would be brave enough to offer concessions like the release of certain prisoners to bring it about.
For so many reasons this could never have happened under a Tory government
Latest Posts
ChatterBank7 mins ago
News13 mins ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
Crosswords16 mins ago
ChatterBank32 mins ago
