Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 402

Try our Fantastic 5-Issue Bundle Offer! For just £18, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:
The Play-offs Issue - pictured (out 12 Sept) – Covering the climax of the Super League & Championship seasons
The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final excitement from both sides of the world plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Thatcherism - The Political Debate Thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
324 replies to this topic

#21 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,942 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:26 PM

I don't know whether replying to your post will cross into the content of the politics thread but I'll respond anyway.
 
Given the choice, I am sure Thatcher would have preferred a negotiated way forward.  However, she came to power at a time when the unions were strong enough to depose a government (as they effectively did with Ted Heath's government).  No unelected body should have that degree of power in a democracy and she understood that quite clearly.  The minute she took on the might of the unions they fought back.  Most of the leaders, particularly the idiot in charge of the miners, were as absorbed in their own ideology as Thatcher was in hers and therefore it was a case of six of one, half a dozen of the other.  But it was important that democracy won, and it did.  While those who like to jump on the hate bandwagon persist in pointing out the destruction of communities (and St Helens was a strong mining and glassmaking community but is now former in both pretty much), what they don't like to consider is that during the present economic crisis, people have stayed in jobs because unions have negotiated with management and management have retained workers for when things get better: a situation that would never have happened in the 1970s.  There would have been all out war on the streets since 2008 had Thatcher not quashed the unions.  That is one of the very positive aspects of her legacy.
 
As for the financial industry being deregulated, you need to look to Gordon Brown for that one, which may upset you.  He was the one who deregulated the financial services industry.
 
So far as public transport is concerned, I understand why Thatcher considered privatisation.  Nationalised services and industries are invariably loss making and certainly in this country they were extremely inefficient and very costly to the tax payer.  However, both were controversial policies at the time.  Mind you, when I travel to London or the Lake District on Virgin Trains I wonder at the quality of service, food, the discount prices (if I time my booking right), time keeping, cleanliness and comfort of the whole experience.  It is so, so far ahead of anything I experienced when British Rail was in operation that all my initial doubts about privatising the rail network have long since vanished!  You really had to be there to know just how bloody awful British Rail was!  The buses are slightly different as their privatisation had a direct impact on outlying communities and elderly people who relied heavily upon them.  There was also a sharp spike in prices.  Personally, I haven't seen any particular improvement in the bus services since privatisation.  I may even think they have worsened.
 
Section 28 was created as a direct result of predominant public feeling at the time, just as its repeal came as a result of predominant public feeling at the time. 
 
The Falkland Islanders identified as British.  They still do.  I would hope the British government would rescue/protect me from an invader because I also identify as British (well, English these days).  Why should we not rescue the British Falkland Islanders just because they are thousands of miles away?  Thatcher did the right thing where the Falkland Islands are concerned.

Thatcher, or should I say Sir Keith Joseph orchestrated, planned and handled the miners' strike superbly. They wated to smash the NUM. The NUM or any other unioin didn't bring down any government. The government(s) brought themselves down by tyhir inmadequacy in dealing with te NUM. The NUM, when Heath was in power acted legally(their constitution, decision making processes. democracy and so on were an are more stringent than what the Tories brought into force under Thatcher). Scargill as a combative, one dimensional leader who was outflanked from the outset by the government, but the conduct ofthe government and their vassals during the strike was unforgivable.I haven't if you read my posts on these two threads jumped on any bandwagon. I loathed what the Thatcher government did not just in terms of the miners' strike: and yes I felt it necessary that the countries obsolete industries needed replacing, but the way the government vindictively wen about its work leaves me bitter to thbis day.

British rail was an appalling oprganisation, to what extent do you think lack of investment was responsible for that? I suggest you look at other nationalised rail systems for examples of how they can succeed.

so the predominat feeling in the country was homophobia at the time was it? O, there was a lot of racism going around at the time: how com they didn't bring any race laws in? The Thatcher governmnt was supposed to be a government of conviction.

You missed my point about the Falklands tragedy.
The islands had to be retaken, but it was due to the incompetence of the government that the conflict happenedin the first place and was such a close run affair. The government as on the brink of selling the invincibleto Australia andf drastically cutting the navy's frigate strength, and of coure it was proposed to remove the islands' only constant naval presence.

Why would Gordon Brown's handling of the economy upset me? Do you suppose I'm a labour supporter? far from it.

Then of course there was the Poll Tax

Edited by l'angelo mysterioso, 08 April 2013 - 10:28 PM.

WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#22 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 09:07 AM

Mind you, when I travel to London or the Lake District on Virgin Trains I wonder at the quality of service, food, the discount prices (if I time my booking right), time keeping, cleanliness and comfort of the whole experience.

I travel on Virgin trains a lot and I can assure you that I too wonder at the quality of service, food, the discount prices, time keeping, cleanliness and comfort of the whole experience. I wonder at them all. But mainly I'm wondering what the hell that smell is.

OT, sorry.

That's me.  I'm done.


#23 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 09:40 AM

A lot of the world problems today both economic and geopolitics can be laid at the feet of the former "leaders of the free world" Ronald Reagan and Margaret thatcher.

This is undeniably true.

After the war a large number of countries in the West settled into a fairly progressive way of governing and achieved great success. Here we had the full employment of the swinging sixties, in France they had the social reforms of the Fourth Republic and the economic growth of the Trente Glorieuses, there was the Wirtschaftswunder in West Germany. Across more or less all the nations which could be considered comparable to ours, governments successfully pursued social market policies which, by and large, produced considerable wealth and shared that wealth around fairly equally and fairly.

By the 70s, invitably, the flaws in this way of governing had started to show and the combination of this and external shocks like the oil crisis, lead to a stagnation. I am totally in agreement with those who say there needed to be a change, and a big one, in 1979. Whether the change that was required was Thatcherism/Reaganomics is a debatable one but the 35 year post war consensus was over and that was the change that we got. Other countries took slightly different paths, with generally more success, but what's done is done and we have now had 35 years of Thatcherism. And we again have a stagnating economy and a society at a crossroads.

Whereas the brakes on growth were the underinvested, unproductive state owned mass industries in the 1970s we now have a bloated and corrupt financial sector that hoovers up talented young people and can act only on short term profit rather than long term investment.

Whereas in the 1970s we had undemocratic unions abusing their power and ensuring that public services and other industries were run for the benefit of their members rather than for the paying customer, we now have undemocratic Capita, Serco, E-Act, Virgin running vast swathes of our services for the benefit of their shareholders rather than the people who rely on their services.

Thatcher is dead. Like her or loathe her, agree with her or disagree, she was a remarkable woman. But of far more importance is that Thatcherism is dying. Cameron is the last gasp, and it will get a lot nastier yet before it's all over, but it's on its way out, make no mistake about that.

That's me.  I'm done.


#24 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,492 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 09:48 AM

I travel on Virgin trains a lot and I can assure you that I too wonder at the quality of service, food, the discount prices, time keeping, cleanliness and comfort of the whole experience. I wonder at them all. But mainly I'm wondering what the hell that smell is.

OT, sorry.

It's probably the person sitting next to you.  Unfortunately, we still have to share carriages with other people.



#25 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,492 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 09:57 AM

Thatcher, or should I say Sir Keith Joseph orchestrated, planned and handled the miners' strike superbly. They wated to smash the NUM. The NUM or any other unioin didn't bring down any government. The government(s) brought themselves down by tyhir inmadequacy in dealing with te NUM. The NUM, when Heath was in power acted legally(their constitution, decision making processes. democracy and so on were an are more stringent than what the Tories brought into force under Thatcher). Scargill as a combative, one dimensional leader who was outflanked from the outset by the government, but the conduct ofthe government and their vassals during the strike was unforgivable.I haven't if you read my posts on these two threads jumped on any bandwagon. I loathed what the Thatcher government did not just in terms of the miners' strike: and yes I felt it necessary that the countries obsolete industries needed replacing, but the way the government vindictively wen about its work leaves me bitter to thbis day.

British rail was an appalling oprganisation, to what extent do you think lack of investment was responsible for that? I suggest you look at other nationalised rail systems for examples of how they can succeed.

so the predominat feeling in the country was homophobia at the time was it? O, there was a lot of racism going around at the time: how com they didn't bring any race laws in? The Thatcher governmnt was supposed to be a government of conviction.

You missed my point about the Falklands tragedy.
The islands had to be retaken, but it was due to the incompetence of the government that the conflict happenedin the first place and was such a close run affair. The government as on the brink of selling the invincibleto Australia andf drastically cutting the navy's frigate strength, and of coure it was proposed to remove the islands' only constant naval presence.

Why would Gordon Brown's handling of the economy upset me? Do you suppose I'm a labour supporter? far from it.

Then of course there was the Poll Tax

The post of mine you are replying to was written in response to one asking me questions and both were originally located on the other Thatcher thread so no, I won't have read any of your other posts.  I don't jump on bandwagons.

 

I don't think lack of investment had anything to do with British Rail being 'an appalling disorganisation'.  If you have any knowledge at all about our nationalised train system you will know that it had been in trouble for years.  Just because other countries make their systems work, doesn't mean we are able to make ours work. 

 

Actually yes, if you view the time of Section 28 through the glasses of today's language and predominant views then the prevailing wind was homophobic (although there was no such word at the time).  Generally speaking (and obviously nobody can talk for everybody at any time), people did not want their children learning about gay relationships at school.  That is how it was.  I'm not saying that was a correct or incorrect attitude; it was just how it was.  That changed, and so did the legislation. 

 

The government was doing what all governments do at times of economic crisis and that was cut back the defence budget.  Thatcher was caught out.  We had to borrow a ship from New Zealand I think it was.  But we did what we had to do and won back the Falklands for the British people living there.

 

The Poll Tax was very good in theory.  I benefited from it because I was a single person living alone.  I had to pay the same in rates as my neighbours who had three working people in their household.  The Poll Tax (Community Charge) sought to address that disparity and so I paid less than my neighbours.  However, it was impossible to administer and so was repealed.  I believe it is the only piece of legislation to have been introduced and repealed by the same government.



#26 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 10:03 AM

The Poll Tax was very good in theory.

Lots of things are.

That's me.  I'm done.


#27 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,942 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 10:09 AM

The post of mine you are replying to was written in response to one asking me questions and both were originally located on the other Thatcher thread so no, I won't have read any of your other posts.  I don't jump on bandwagons.

 

I don't think lack of investment had anything to do with British Rail being 'an appalling disorganisation'.  If you have any knowledge at all about our nationalised train system you will know that it had been in trouble for years.  Just because other countries make their systems work, doesn't mean we are able to make ours work. 

 

Actually yes, if you view the time of Section 28 through the glasses of today's language and predominant views then the prevailing wind was homophobic (although there was no such word at the time).  Generally speaking (and obviously nobody can talk for everybody at any time), people did not want their children learning about gay relationships at school.  That is how it was.  I'm not saying that was a correct or incorrect attitude; it was just how it was.  That changed, and so did the legislation. 

 

The government was doing what all governments do at times of economic crisis and that was cut back the defence budget.  Thatcher was caught out.  We had to borrow a ship from New Zealand I think it was.  But we did what we had to do and won back the Falklands for the British people living there.

 

The Poll Tax was very good in theory.  I benefited from it because I was a single person living alone.  I had to pay the same in rates as my neighbours who had three working people in their household.  The Poll Tax (Community Charge) sought to address that disparity and so I paid less than my neighbours.  However, it was impossible to administer and so was repealed.  I believe it is the only piece of legislation to have been introduced and repealed by the same government.

I have an intimate knowledge of the nationalised rail sstem of the UK, from the continuation of building obsolete un-needed steam locomotivesthroighouit the 1950s, to the botched, wasteful modernisation plan that followed it, to the lack of investment wich lft it lagging embarrqssingly behind thre national rail systems of western Europe.

 

congratulations on benefitting from the poll tax


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#28 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,681 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 11:12 AM

The post of mine you are replying to was written in response to one asking me questions and both were originally located on the other Thatcher thread so no, I won't have read any of your other posts. I don't jump on bandwagons.

I don't think lack of investment had anything to do with British Rail being 'an appalling disorganisation'. If you have any knowledge at all about our nationalised train system you will know that it had been in trouble for years. Just because other countries make their systems work, doesn't mean we are able to make ours work.

Actually yes, if you view the time of Section 28 through the glasses of today's language and predominant views then the prevailing wind was homophobic (although there was no such word at the time). Generally speaking (and obviously nobody can talk for everybody at any time), people did not want their children learning about gay relationships at school. That is how it was. I'm not saying that was a correct or incorrect attitude; it was just how it was. That changed, and so did the legislation.

The government was doing what all governments do at times of economic crisis and that was cut back the defence budget. Thatcher was caught out. We had to borrow a ship from New Zealand I think it was. But we did what we had to do and won back the Falklands for the British people living there.

The Poll Tax was very good in theory. I benefited from it because I was a single person living alone. I had to pay the same in rates as my neighbours who had three working people in their household. The Poll Tax (Community Charge) sought to address that disparity and so I paid less than my neighbours. However, it was impossible to administer and so was repealed. I believe it is the only piece of legislation to have been introduced and repealed by the same government.


I think your posts sum up what thatcher was about. You personally benefited in a very small financial way from her policies therefore her dogma was a good one.

Just forget about everyone else in society.

#29 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 11:15 AM

I think your posts sum up what thatcher was about. You personally benefited in a very small financial way from her policies therefore her dogma was a good one.

Just forget about everyone else in society.

Nailed it. Right there.

That's me.  I'm done.


#30 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,875 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 11:33 AM

I think your posts sum up what thatcher was about. You personally benefited in a very small financial way from her policies therefore her dogma was a good one.

Just forget about everyone else in society.

Thatcherism in a nutshell.
Fides invicta triumphat

#31 dhw

dhw
  • Coach
  • 669 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 11:39 AM

I think your posts sum up what thatcher was about. You personally benefited in a very small financial way from her policies therefore her dogma was a good one.

Just forget about everyone else in society.

 

In terms of quality of life, social changes and and standard of living most people in the UK did benefit in the mid to long term. In the short term many people did suffer.



#32 Just Browny

Just Browny
  • Coach
  • 11,737 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 11:41 AM

I think your posts sum up what thatcher was about. You personally benefited in a very small financial way from her policies therefore her dogma was a good one.

Just forget about everyone else in society.

 

Yes. And it's the blueprint for the current meagre rise in the personal allowance. Have an extra fiver a week, then keep quiet about the scroungers next door who've had their benefits cut.


I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.


#33 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,681 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 11:49 AM

In terms of quality of life, social changes and and standard of living most people in the UK did benefit in the mid to long term. In the short term many people did suffer.


The quality of life and social changes are a result of progress in science understanding and health care. This has happen throughout the ages and is a result of mankinds curiosity not any political dogma.

#34 tonyXIII

tonyXIII
  • Coach
  • 4,985 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 11:53 AM

The quality of life and social changes are a result of progress in science understanding and health care. This has happen throughout the ages and is a result of mankinds curiosity not any political dogma.

 

You sure of that? What about the improvements (sic) in North Korea? Are they not down to political dogma?

 

The politicians provide for the infrastructure/culture/society in which mankinds curiosity can prosper.


Rethymno Rugby League Appreciation Society
Founder (and, so far, only) member.


#35 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,942 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 11:53 AM

In terms of quality of life, social changes and and standard of living most people in the UK did benefit in the mid to long term. In the short term many people did suffer.

there is a lot in that

 

but the issue surounding Thatcher and her team was the way it was done, the fact that one ofher ams was to establish a resevoir of cheap, often part time, subdued labour for the service industries, and the little matter of a needless war which she ended up being the beneficiary of when in fact it was her government's fault in the first place. Also I'm not sure where deregulation of the finance industry, and the poll tax fits in to your vision.

 

Here's a good thing that happened: telephones. Can you imagine what things would have been like if the phon system had still been run by the GPO?


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#36 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,681 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 11:57 AM

You sure of that? What about the improvements (sic) in North Korea? Are they not down to political dogma?

The politicians provide for the infrastructure/culture/society in which mankinds curiosity can prosper.


I was referring to PROGRESS sure some totalitarian political regimes can stifle this, but progress has happen throughout the ages independently of political regimes.

#37 tonyXIII

tonyXIII
  • Coach
  • 4,985 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 12:08 PM

I was referring to PROGRESS sure some totalitarian political regimes can stifle this, but progress has happen throughout the ages independently of political regimes.

 

And you don't think that political regimes can enable or even encourage such progress?


Rethymno Rugby League Appreciation Society
Founder (and, so far, only) member.


#38 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,681 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 12:15 PM

And you don't think that political regimes can enable or even encourage such progress?


Ok which regime is responsible for the increase in life expectancy from about 40 years 300 hundred years ago to 80 years now

Scientific progress can only be stifled by totalitarian regimes it will flourish if it is left to its own devices. Thatcher in this respect did nothing extra than previous governments.

#39 tonyXIII

tonyXIII
  • Coach
  • 4,985 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 12:23 PM

Ok which regime is responsible for the increase in life expectancy from about 40 years 300 hundred years ago to 80 years now

Scientific progress can only be stifled by totalitarian regimes it will flourish if it is left to its own devices. Thatcher in this respect did nothing extra than previous governments.

 

A series of broadly similar regimes (your word, not mine) which have encouraged scientific and artistic advancement.

 

It will flourish if left to its own devices? It won't because it needs investment. There have been huge advances in science as a result of state-sponsored programs such as the USA's space program, the UK and France's Concorde program. Where would artistic endeavours like the National Gallery or ENO be without state support? To suggest that these things can operate successfully in isolation is surely not correct.


Rethymno Rugby League Appreciation Society
Founder (and, so far, only) member.


#40 dhw

dhw
  • Coach
  • 669 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 12:38 PM

The quality of life and social changes are a result of progress in science understanding and health care. This has happen throughout the ages and is a result of mankinds curiosity not any political dogma.

 

Quality of life involves many things not just healthcare, social changes are often driven from political changes and changing attitiudes in society. Aside from that quality of life is not purely a result of scientific/healthcare knowledge, because if they were pretty much every country in the world would have similar life expectancy. If a political decision was made tomorrow that refuse collection and disposal was the responsibility of the individual that would have a massive impact on standard of health and have big impacts on many other areas including general safety of the public and provision of services. Over recent years Thailand and Vietnam has seen hugs leaps in standards of health and life expectancy and infant mortality in rural areas which has been driven by political changes not advances in healthcare.

 

Education - choice and standard of education improved (driven by political changes)

Economy - resulted in a lot of inward investment, shift towards serivce based economy rather than an agricultural and manufacturing one, with significant changes in property and tourism contributing to the economy. Those shifts resulted a higher standard of living and better quality of life for the public in general. Much of this was done deliberately through political actions.

Public services - become more customer focused rather than driven by the whims of local and central government

Meritocratic - supporting a move towards a more meritocratic culture

Trade Unions - a controversial subject

Open Markets - a politcal decision to make the economy more open (internally at least)

 

All those things have benefitted (sometimes indirectly) most people in this country.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users