to think that surely not EVERYONE hates Maggie?

[LadyOfTheManor]

Seriously, unless you're a miner or from a mining family, or Welsh... ok well even if you are, surely not EVERYONE hates Maggie T?

I'm a tad young, I was born in her "reign", but I did my degree in Politics and although I didn't really live under her (it was Major until I was 11) I couldn't see what she did that was SO terrible-let alone the sheer hostility when her name is mentioned here (in Wales!).

Your posts have been brilliant on this thread Alouiseg.

They had enough warning usedtobeyoung it wasn't exactly sprung on them, they could have got out and moved on before their employment stopped.

I'm another one who finds the idea of celebrating a persons death quite abhorrent.

I remember my socialist father being appalled at some of his comrades reactions at the Brighton Conference bombing (even though he cannot abide the woman) especially at the death of Norman Tebbit's wife and his injuries. He actually applauded Maggie for carrying on with the conference. It's that gumption which was sadly lacking in more recent times.

*She was powerful but not powerful enough to destroy industry!!!

The industries were in decline, they were bloated by the unions and draining subsidies out of the country faster than the EU.

The work to rule strikers fastened the nail firmly in their own coffin by their refusal to accept that they were uncompetetive in the world*

Spot on Alouiseg! the country was in decline as it was. Industry was failing, and the Tories were used as a scapegoat just as they are now.

I don't even know which party I subscribe to. I'm not a Tory, or a Labour supporter. Heck, I'm not even Liberal. All I know is that there hasn't been one single government which has done all good & no bad. Cherry-picking never solved anything.

and please do tell us what jobs the miners should have got? What does a 55 year old miner with limited education and shrivelled up coal dust lungs be qualified for?

alouiseg if you lived in one of the northern manufacturing towns, as I did you would have a different perspective.

Thatcher drove through the economic policies based on a flawed interpretation of monetarism that had a direct consequence of taxing manufacturing and heavy out of profitability.

Jobs created were front loaded onto the tertiary or service sector, rather than in long term sustainable industrial or manufacturing output, thus leading to a long term lack of a skilled manual workforce, further leading to the problems that we are wrestling with today, a deskilled, unmotivated, uncaring jobless underclass.

For which I do hold her responsible. She was the Prime Minister and made the decisions.

Alouiseg, Could they have really though? The odd few, yes and I?m sure some did. But I?m sure a lot were also living in council housing and were tied to their homes in a pragmatic way. I'm guessing there would not have been many willing to exchange their city homes to move to a mining village. I also doubt the earnings of a miner were comparable to a city trader.

Deciduous I also find the idea of celebrating a death disgraceful..

Regardless of what I feel about her as a politician, it is just wrong.

Just a few more ripostes:

Thatcher's behaviour during the Falklands war is in no way comparable to Churchill's during WW2. Churchill sought aid from Stalin. Russia made huge sacrifices in terms of land and people to support the Allies. Without his support, we would have lost. Thatcher, on the other hand, escalated a territory skirmish into a bloodbath so as to whip up jingoism as she faced losing the 1983 election. Even her supporters among high-ranking Army officers criticised "Thatcher's War" as an unneccesary waste of lives.

Job losses on the Stock Exchange were, like many others, due to technological advancements. Job losses at the mines were due to the withholding of technological advancements (by the unions, not Thatch.)

Britain has never been socialist. It has always been capitalist. Wilson & Heath held identical core values - they would have been called a "middle way" if we'd had any idea how far things were about to shift. The union leaders were so-called socialists. They were wrong. But they were not the government.

I imagine after being stuck down a mine, he might like some sunlight.

The vast majority of over 45's were automatically put onto a form of sickness benefit which was far more generous than the dole at that time, they were basically given a form of early, medical retirement.

The problem was that the younger, not unwell miners didn't move on, it became the norm to wait for "the sick" to ensure a basic standard of living. This is why we have 4 generations of non working families in such large numbers in places such as Merthyrr. We just needed a bit of motivation to move on and exploit other areas and careers, for some reason it didnt happen.

Indeed, smallwhitecat.

People tend to look at me in quite a perplexed way when I tell them that we have been in decline since the 1930's.

Thatcher destroyed the unions by destroying the lives of the people who formed union memberships. She changed legislation which had been set up to prevent unfair exploitation. The reason many of today's people can't understand how drastic that was is that no-one under 40 has actually lived in a situation where their right to reasonable pay & conditions was protected by law. (Instead, you have to go a tribunal, which keeps a lot more pen-pushers in work than the unions did.)

She did this not because it was the only way, but out of personal hatred for all things egalitarian.

It's no good saying "heavy industry was moribund, so let's get rid of it." We can't survive without heavy industry. As we have none of our own, we're in thrall to overseas suppliers. We buy everything in and we make practically nothing. How is this good economics?

Is that the height of your political reasoning, swc?

Countries with high, first world living standards cannot support heavy industry because we cannot compete with imports from China, India, Africa. Therefore our economy has it's base in "higher" sectors. We have the technology and we have the skills. We leave heavy industry to developing countries.

I don't expect anyone in this country fancies asbestos mining do they? No, thought not, we'll leave that to the developing countries and while we're at it we'll ship over our waste for them to recycle and obtain rare earth minerals from our second hand mobiles. Not a very palatable truth but it. Would never get passed Health & Safety here, we're too advanced and wee have too much knowledge.

And my typos are multiplying!

OK, for those of you who need smaller concepts to work with, try this:-

Where I live, there are no large towns. It's an agricultural hub. Very beautiful and lacking urban infrastructures - most people live in tiny villages reached by country roads. These villages have no buses, or one bus a week. Trains pass by but no longer stop there.

Because of their inaccessibility, housing in the villages is very cheap. Because they're cheap they're populated largely by the elderly, disabled, those with SNs and single mothers. This leaves a problem in that those people can't afford to run a car. There are no shops or pubs in most of the villages. Without transport, villagers can't get to a job (or interviews) and have restricted access to services.

Genuine question: What you think can be done about the fact that so many people are cut off from ordinary life?

Later this year, SWC, employers will gain the right to dismiss workers summarily for perceived inefficiency. I didn't say pay & conditions aren't protected by law. Current 'protections' are a costly & inefficient method of enforcing them. The new rule, however, will create more work for tribunals.

Goodness, swc, you seem to hate me! What have I done to you?

Or are personal insults the best you can do in terms of debate?

Fair question Grace but one that probably deserves it's own thread. Unless you want to lay the blame at Lady Thatchers door?