Which Outfit For My Birthday Night Out?
Shopping & Style1 min ago
Was Margaret Thatcher Right?
I confess that during the 80's I was opposed to much of what she was doing, but I now think, with the luxury of hindsight, that I have to agree with Niall Ferguson, do you agree?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. 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.
-- answer removed --
I see old monocell has seen fit to denigrate our services. I had largely stayed out of this thread because whenever TGL comes up, the vitriol flies, I won't bother with the customary easy negation of those silly arguments but suffice to say I want to thank you for the most part for keeping this fairly sensible. Obviously monocell has used this to denigrate our forces and spout the usual BS about the Falklands. Of course the 10cs has also spouted the "despot" mantra without telling us how many "despots" have got voted out of office. Overall though, I'm impressed with most of you for being sensible.
Mikey, I have never decried the selling of council houses but i do agree that it was an error to not allow the councils to use the money to build new ones but having said that, the judge made an excellent point that one of the reasons for selling council houses was to release the councils from maintenance etc of those houses so we may have to consider that as a factor. Overall though the selling of council houses was a good thing, possibly sold a bit cheap mind.
“TTT....forgive me but aren't you on record as decrying the sale of Council houses, and the forbidding of the Councils to use the money raised to build replacement homes, when we have discussed this issue before ?”
There were lots of things which Mrs T did, Mikey, with which some of her most ardent supporters would not agree. No politician of any persuasion can keep all their supporters happy all of the time. I personally did not agree with the privatisation of the water industry (I believe that water for domestic purposes should be funded from general taxation and only commercial and industrial supplies should be subject to a charge). Although she was not PM when it was finally implemented, her administration also paved the way for rail privatisation. Whilst I am not against this in principle I believe the model used to achieve it resulted in the dogs’ breakfast we suffer today (though of course it is arguable that it was the only model that would comply with EU restrictions).
But you have to take the package on offer, warts and all. As has been mentioned, the alternatives on offer did not bear thinking about (certainly not in 1979 when the country had just suffered a “Winter of Discontent” at the end of a decade of chaos). Many people vote in General Elections for the party they least despise. But there was more to it than that in 1979. People were crying out for a fundamental and radical change in the way the country was run and Mrs T was the only one to offer that.
There were lots of things which Mrs T did, Mikey, with which some of her most ardent supporters would not agree. No politician of any persuasion can keep all their supporters happy all of the time. I personally did not agree with the privatisation of the water industry (I believe that water for domestic purposes should be funded from general taxation and only commercial and industrial supplies should be subject to a charge). Although she was not PM when it was finally implemented, her administration also paved the way for rail privatisation. Whilst I am not against this in principle I believe the model used to achieve it resulted in the dogs’ breakfast we suffer today (though of course it is arguable that it was the only model that would comply with EU restrictions).
But you have to take the package on offer, warts and all. As has been mentioned, the alternatives on offer did not bear thinking about (certainly not in 1979 when the country had just suffered a “Winter of Discontent” at the end of a decade of chaos). Many people vote in General Elections for the party they least despise. But there was more to it than that in 1979. People were crying out for a fundamental and radical change in the way the country was run and Mrs T was the only one to offer that.
NJ....I congratulate you on your honest appraisal of her record in Government. It was more honest than most the toadying remarks from other Tory supporters.
100% right about water, but the same argument could just as easily be applied to electricity and gas....all three are necessities of life, that ought to be in public ownership. My water, electricity and gas comes from exactly the same sources as they did 35 years ago, but now part of the price I pay for them has to be creamed-off as profit for the owners, which is not the taxpayer.
The railways are in a God-almighty mess, again not helped by the sad fact that a creaming-off procedure has to be in place. In the case of our railways, the subsidy paid by the tax payer, goes straight into the profit for the privatised owners, rather than in lower fares for commuters or improved services.
All this was obvious to anybody at the time, who was prepared to give it some thought. The Tories even managed to persuade some people to buy shares in industries that they already owned....remember "tell Sid " ?
The selling-off of Council houses was a blatant attempt at bribing the working class to vote Tory for the first time, in the belief that people who were given the chance to buy their won Council house was much more likely to vote Tory in the future.
Of course, the children and grandchildren of those first time buyers now find that there are no affordable homes available, to buy or rent !
That is her legacy to us in 2017.
100% right about water, but the same argument could just as easily be applied to electricity and gas....all three are necessities of life, that ought to be in public ownership. My water, electricity and gas comes from exactly the same sources as they did 35 years ago, but now part of the price I pay for them has to be creamed-off as profit for the owners, which is not the taxpayer.
The railways are in a God-almighty mess, again not helped by the sad fact that a creaming-off procedure has to be in place. In the case of our railways, the subsidy paid by the tax payer, goes straight into the profit for the privatised owners, rather than in lower fares for commuters or improved services.
All this was obvious to anybody at the time, who was prepared to give it some thought. The Tories even managed to persuade some people to buy shares in industries that they already owned....remember "tell Sid " ?
The selling-off of Council houses was a blatant attempt at bribing the working class to vote Tory for the first time, in the belief that people who were given the chance to buy their won Council house was much more likely to vote Tory in the future.
Of course, the children and grandchildren of those first time buyers now find that there are no affordable homes available, to buy or rent !
That is her legacy to us in 2017.
The building of Council Housing began in earnest after World War 1.
Homes Fit for Heroes was the slogan and on that wave, housing stocks grew rapidly.
However, fifty years later, the sentiment had worn off, and the running and maintenance had become burdensome for local councils.
The Conservatives' ideology then was to sell all public assets, so housing was a prime target. The fatal flaw was that no new affordable homes were being built. And why there is now a shortage of cheap housing.
Homes Fit for Heroes was the slogan and on that wave, housing stocks grew rapidly.
However, fifty years later, the sentiment had worn off, and the running and maintenance had become burdensome for local councils.
The Conservatives' ideology then was to sell all public assets, so housing was a prime target. The fatal flaw was that no new affordable homes were being built. And why there is now a shortage of cheap housing.
// The railways are in a God-almighty mess, again not helped by the sad fact that a creaming-off procedure has to be in place. In the case of our railways, the subsidy paid by the tax payer, goes straight into the profit for the privatised owners, rather than in lower fares for commuters or improved services. //
I couldn't disagree more.
The only problem with the railways now is that they are too popular and over subscribed. There are a few bad operators, but that is inevitable in an open bidding process. On the whole, the network is very good.
I couldn't disagree more.
The only problem with the railways now is that they are too popular and over subscribed. There are a few bad operators, but that is inevitable in an open bidding process. On the whole, the network is very good.
I half agree, Gromit.
The railways are certainly the victim of their own success. But the privatisation model used, which separates train operators from infrastructure provision, was always a recipe for disaster. The industry that has been built up to manage the relationship between the two is cumbersome and expensive to run. Furthermore there is no real incentive for the infrastructure provider to manage its track efficiently.
Despite all that the railways are infinitely better than they were prior to privatisation (and I speak from experience having used them almost continually as a commuter and a long distance traveller for more than forty years). Disregarding the recent troubles on Southern (which is plainly and simply due to an intransigent union pursuing a political aim) on balance privatisation has seen a vast improvement in services.
The railways are certainly the victim of their own success. But the privatisation model used, which separates train operators from infrastructure provision, was always a recipe for disaster. The industry that has been built up to manage the relationship between the two is cumbersome and expensive to run. Furthermore there is no real incentive for the infrastructure provider to manage its track efficiently.
Despite all that the railways are infinitely better than they were prior to privatisation (and I speak from experience having used them almost continually as a commuter and a long distance traveller for more than forty years). Disregarding the recent troubles on Southern (which is plainly and simply due to an intransigent union pursuing a political aim) on balance privatisation has seen a vast improvement in services.
