Discussion in 'Diamond Lil's' started by Sapphire, Jun 24, 2008.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
You have two cows.
You sell off your employees family silver and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and your wealth grows. Meanwhile your employees have multiplied but your labour costs have remained the same.
You steal your employees pension savings and retire to a tax haven with no extradition treaty, to live on the income.
When the Opposition win the next general election they demand the employees take another pay cut and post the savings, negative tax, to the employer.
Thatcher was a cow... :evil:
I object to that Sgt P...it's an insult to cows. :rendeer:
she did what needed to be done at the time, the UK had been economically crippled and was running what amounted to a socialist economy with disproportionate union authority.
One needn't be liked to be an effective leader (probably just as well from a personal perspective), but she did hang on too long, surrounding herself by sycophants and yes-men.
Obviously some on here are not attracted to women with power ?
I think there is a big difference between women with power and attractive women with power
Of course it's also worth recognising ones motivations for any attraction
Now this morning I was in a meeting with two lawyers (of the female persuasion); intelligence and looks, drool
Bang on Karma. If a nationalised electricity industry has to run on nationalised coal where the price is continually being pushed up by the miners, and only that nationalised electricity is available to produce nationalised steel, with the unions doing their self-seeking worst in both those industries too, car-making and ship-building are stuffed on their energy costs even before Red Robbo and his mates have wrecked the carmakers and the Communist union leaders on the Red Clyde have wrecked the international competitiveness of our shipbuilding.
Similarly state control of the docks stonewalled containerisation (and binned a scheme called BACAT which would have allowed barges to bring containers from the Rhine etc up the Humber to Britain) by forcing - via Michael Foot - containers to be re-stowed in the docks so that the dockers could go on stealing from the cargoes. Michael Foot and his fellow dinosaurs of course believed in the central fallacy of Socialism, that politics could control economics and that apparatchiks in the Civil Service are better decision makers than the people who run actual industries.
Thank goodness Maggie got us out of that before our economy went the way of the Soviet one. Pity she didn't fix the British Socialist Broadcasting Corporation while she was at it, and pity she let dim irresponsible lefties like Hurd and Clarke loose in the Home dept. And pity she didn't spot that John Major only had the limited horizons of a borough councillor.
Taking on the vested interests of the powerful unions WAS necessary. Her destruction of our civil, as against economic liberties (which many seem to have been forgotten), centralizing political power (contrary to what she promised in the 1979 general election manifesto), undermining our manufacturing base and substituting the primacy of the service sector: so vulnerable to international capitalisation, etc; her privatisation of publically owned utilities at knock down prices (which former Conservative Ministers benefited from later in their appointments to some of their company boards); appointing Carey as Archbishop of Canterbury (a disasterous choice which is principally responsible for the Anglican Church's present prospect of schism)* - rather than Desmond Tutu; excessivly increasing immiseration (a la para-Pareto economic philosophy) to drive down labour costs at the bottom of the pay scale and her failure to heed warnings about Argentine intentions following the occupation of Grytviken by Argentine "whalers" (for which Carrington & Luce, both excellent men with sharp, analytical minds, took the rap by resigning), etc, etc are her less than salubrious legacy. One should also remember that closer political union within the EU was only possible because she forced through the Single European Act (on a three line whip in both chambers) which transformed the hitherto economic union (the old EEC) into the EC, and following the Maastrict Treaty (brought in by Major) the creation of the EU. The Maastrict Treaty was a direct consequence of the SEA. Thatcher was not hoodwinked by the EEC over that as has been claimed. She received legal advice from Lord Denning (then Master of the Rolls) warning her that the SEA was a treaty which transformed the nature of the EEC but she brushed his opinion aside. Denning was of course correct. Then there was the introduction of the community charge - which contrary to what was promised in the Conservative Manifesto, did not base the charge on an ability to pay.
*Carey was responsible from moving the CoE from being a broad church to one more narrowly focussed on the conservative evangelical agenda both in his appointments & policy from Lambeth.
Karma, Seaweed, I agree.
A little harsh, I suggest. Had either Thatcher or Blare been PM during Op GRANBY, we may have had the cluster f**k we have now but 12 years early. Thanks to the Tabloids, Spitting Image and the "clever" satirists, Mr M's statesmanship was largely overlooked at home. Overseas chappies did seem to take notice of him, though. The American Op PROVIDE COMFORT was, I believe, something he should take some significant credit for.
Mrs T was right for the time and anyone remembering the state of the country in the late 1970s - unions deciding who got into hospital, dead bodies not being buried, power cuts etc. etc. will probably agree that Thatcher was correct.
At the end of the day though there were problems - council tax (although fairer than Rates but unpopular) was badly presented, others in the Conservative party wanted her out, and for all her good points she would not stand down after the third election. So, the Conservative Party did the unthinkable and forced her out, Major came through as the compromise man but could not follow the act, COnservative Party ended up in a split that it is still recovering from and and the vacuous little sh1t Blair and his cronies took over.
Had Mrs T stood down, Major may not have one his election but Labour would not have been so strong. Had Mrs T stayed on the Conservatives might have won again and a proper cleanout/hand over could have been instigated or they would have lost and as above Labour although in power would not have been so strong.
As it was Major was sen as boring and weak, Blair pretended to me more like Mrs T and had time to prepare for his time in power which, despite the brand of New Labour actually produced more Socialism (House of Lords emasculated, greater EU integration, forces seen as being old fashioned etc. etc.) thn any previous Labour government ever dared put forward.
Lecture (rant?) over.
Touche! So was Thatcher.
It was also the "boring and weak" man who was the architect and foundation layer of the Ulster peace process and the Good Friday Agreement. It always rankles that Blare acts as if it was all his own doing.
I too believe that Mrs T was our great saviour. I also remember some of her bad points, like introducing a "me first and sod the rest" attitude that started with those City creatures in the red braces. Her much needed realignment of trade union power also had the unfortunate side effect of destroying large parts of manufacturing industry; to the point where we would be hard pressed to make even our own cutlery, should need arise.
Just prior to the Falklands War the Great Leaderene was about to drop the axe on...the Royal Navy was she not?
That would have been really great if preceded by "and another thing!"
Something too easily forgotten. There was a huge rant in the April edition of Warships on how 'socialists' (such as the columnists argued, the present government) 'hate the military' because it represents all the values of self-reliance etc. they despise. It was absolutely puerile.
Particularly bearing in mind that in the late 1970s Argentine expansionism was forestalled by a Labour Government under Jim Callaghan threatening to deploy naval forces to the South Atlantic and with a Labour foreign secretary lobbying for the retention of HMS Endurance.
Then the Conservatives won in 1979 and promptly wanted to get shot of Invincible, Hermes, Endurance and God knows what else. There is a tendency among Thatcherite apologists to blame John Nott for this on his own; lest we forget, John Nott was Thatcher's 'man' in the MOD with a brief (from her) to cut the forces - esp. the Navy - 'down to size'.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of this government or its policies, but people seem to forget that the Navy is an easy target for governments of all political stripes when in office. There are plenty of Tory commentators who have recently been advocating naval cuts (esp CVF) to pay for extra expenditure on the Army/RAF.
What they seem not to realise is it needs not to be a bunfight between different bits of the pie, but a bigger pie as a whole.
Rant over :thumright:
Oops! I must keep off the bedtime Horlicks! :thumright:
If you fancy reading the old Hansard Defence Debates you can do so via this link:
The House of Commons Debate on the Royal Navy, following the 'Options for Change' White Paper were Debated on 19 June 1980, below:
It was also the Thatcher administration that replaced cotton anti-flash hoods with nylon ones, in 1982, to save money. I recall Admiral Leech defending the decision in the Navy News at the time. I also clearly remember her opposition to maintaining expenditure on civil defence until, that is, the Labour Party came out against it too on the silly grounds that it made a nuclear conflagration more likely, then suddenly we were invested in and my local Conservative council made a (political) point of investing in it.
Total silence from the Daily Mail editorial team?? Shock horror.
Separate names with a comma.