News1 min ago
Has Thatcher pegged out yet?
45 Answers
Don't say she's recovered?! There'll be loads of people having street parties when she pegs out. The only trouble is it's 30 years too late
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 10ClarionSt. 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.
Clarion:
There's a reason Thatcher had a gripe with the Unions. The reason was that they were constantly blockading growth throughout the 70s. A cycle had started - the nationalised industries were essentially run by politicians, and whenever a fall in demand came, that means you have to cut back production and lay people off.
The Unions blocked this so you had industries cutting back on production while paying for employees who had no reason to be in the industry. So they cut wages. Unions striked. Then later started striking for higher wages, which the industry couldn't afford. Result was industries in a mess.
Thatcher's campaign against the unions was taken too far, but she had a genuine gripe with them that wasn't just out of spite.
cont.
There's a reason Thatcher had a gripe with the Unions. The reason was that they were constantly blockading growth throughout the 70s. A cycle had started - the nationalised industries were essentially run by politicians, and whenever a fall in demand came, that means you have to cut back production and lay people off.
The Unions blocked this so you had industries cutting back on production while paying for employees who had no reason to be in the industry. So they cut wages. Unions striked. Then later started striking for higher wages, which the industry couldn't afford. Result was industries in a mess.
Thatcher's campaign against the unions was taken too far, but she had a genuine gripe with them that wasn't just out of spite.
cont.
-- answer removed --
Scargill? You do realise that Scargill's later turned up a Stalin apologist, right?
http://www.newstatesman.com/200206100016
I don't blame Thatcher for standing against someone like him.
For the miners, as I've said, coal-mining in the UK had become very expensive when it was simply cheaper to buy coal abroad.
Look, I realise Thatcher's hardly a fluffy sentimental character, but to pose her as some evil twisted lunatic who wanted to destroy communities purely for the fun of it is ludicrous. Do you honestly believe that had she thought she could avert the damage she wouldn't have? Really?
As for the rather melodramatic 'dictator' attack. Thatcher won three elections fair and square. You can make as many claims as you like for this but she still got three victories. Callaghan? He stood for one election. And lost.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200206100016
I don't blame Thatcher for standing against someone like him.
For the miners, as I've said, coal-mining in the UK had become very expensive when it was simply cheaper to buy coal abroad.
Look, I realise Thatcher's hardly a fluffy sentimental character, but to pose her as some evil twisted lunatic who wanted to destroy communities purely for the fun of it is ludicrous. Do you honestly believe that had she thought she could avert the damage she wouldn't have? Really?
As for the rather melodramatic 'dictator' attack. Thatcher won three elections fair and square. You can make as many claims as you like for this but she still got three victories. Callaghan? He stood for one election. And lost.
-- answer removed --
Thatcher knew that her policies would bring hardship and mass unemployment
I never said she didn't. I just said that by the time she was in, what she did was practically unavoidable (and necessary) for the reasons I give above. That's not the same thing as her coming to power deliberately wanting to reap destruction for the fun of it as you were earlier suggesting.
On the privatisation: There's a pretty strong consensus among economists that privatisation led to a greater quality of production and efficiency in industry. Remember that industries make products, and - like any product - it needs to adjust according to demand and competition. They weren't doing that nationalised.
You haven't countered any of my points. I was kinda hoping for a debate. C'mon, you know you want to...
I never said she didn't. I just said that by the time she was in, what she did was practically unavoidable (and necessary) for the reasons I give above. That's not the same thing as her coming to power deliberately wanting to reap destruction for the fun of it as you were earlier suggesting.
On the privatisation: There's a pretty strong consensus among economists that privatisation led to a greater quality of production and efficiency in industry. Remember that industries make products, and - like any product - it needs to adjust according to demand and competition. They weren't doing that nationalised.
You haven't countered any of my points. I was kinda hoping for a debate. C'mon, you know you want to...
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.