Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to think that surely not EVERYONE hates Maggie?

1001 replies

LadyOfTheManor · 28/01/2011 12:27

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!).

OP posts:
siasl · 29/01/2011 14:22

We simply couldn't have competed vs emerging economies in conventional heavy industry. It would disappeared in the post Cold War 1990s when globalization took off anyway. Thatcher accelerated the death rather than trying to maintain the illusion through state subsidy.

The only types of industry a first world country can hope to be competitive in is precision engineering (think Germany) and high technology. Alternative is services like finance, media, education etc. We do lack precision engineering but are pretty good in areas of high-tech (software in particular).

smallwhitecat · 29/01/2011 14:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

ItsGraceAgain · 29/01/2011 14:24

They are not protected the way they were in the 60s. I maintain that you don't know what security feels like, unless you happen to have a very rich family. But it's a waste of time arguing with someone who answers questions with "I don't know but "
So I'm outta here.

TheSecondComing · 29/01/2011 14:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ItsGraceAgain · 29/01/2011 14:33

:) Alouise. From my position, naturally, the villagers' plight is the result of having lost the collective responsibility I described. It is certainly uneconomic to run rural transport services. Now that everything's evaluated purely as a cost centre, this kind of thing is inevitable imo.

I am genuinely interested to know what ideas people have about maintaining enough colllective responsibility to keep the nation functioning, without resorting to so-called socialism ... Contrary to some opinions, I have an open mind am always learning Wink

Alouiseg · 29/01/2011 14:35

The 60's?? Car ownership was in it's infancy for the "normal" family. I really don't think that subsidising public transport is quite as relevant as it was then. Also these businesses should sustain themselves from their fares, it's still more expensive for me to take the train to London than to drive my car. In fact it's cheaper to fly to Spain than it is to get on a train to Leeds Hmm

Alouiseg · 29/01/2011 14:37

I do also live in a village without a bus service, it was scrapped because it wasn't used. Supply and demand I'm afraid.

ItsGraceAgain · 29/01/2011 14:38

Subsidised public transport would be the only way Herefordshire villagers could get to the shops, the doctor's or a job without depending on favours.

ItsGraceAgain · 29/01/2011 14:40

Supply & demand: that's what I was talking about! The S&D curve only applies to markets not people or societies. There's no market for old, disabled or SN people, nor for children (yet!) But the supply keeps on growing. What to do?

Alouiseg · 29/01/2011 14:43

A village near me runs a community bus, its staffed by volunteers andbhas been running for 20 years, it's a very successful venture that was founded by a very small parish council.

Perhaps that's the way forward for rural, non car owning communities? Where there's a will...

BeenBeta · 29/01/2011 14:52

I notice those that hate Thatcher for 'shutting the mines' have not put forward any alternatives.

Really, what were the alternatives but yet more subisidy which was aleady running at £1 billion per year?

Come on tell me. What was the alternatives that didn't involve pouring yet more public money literally down a hole in the ground?

Alouiseg - yes I rememeber the shutting of the Liffe floor and knew a few people who went cab driving or started a business, a few who set up to trade online and a few who just changed career. One man I knew went and got a degree and then became a university lecturer. They didnt sit on their backside and thats for sure.

Candleshoe · 29/01/2011 14:53

One of her most famous interviews in which M.T. expounds her harsh but brilliantly argued views on OUR responsibilities!!
www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

VoluptuaGoodshag · 29/01/2011 15:01

The Tower coal mine in Wales was successfully bought out by redundant miners and only closed in 2008 because the coal eventually did run out.

It was originally closed in 1994 (way after the miners' strike of the 80s) and reopened the following year.
They managed to keep that mine going and economically viable I wish other mines had done the same - anyone know why?

BeenBeta · 29/01/2011 15:01

Buzz - "What does a 55 year old miner with limited education and shrivelled up coal dust lungs be qualified for?"

Thats a damn good reason why men should not go underground to dig coal. For all those arguing that mining should have been saved have never been down a mine and forget the terrible human toll.

Candleshoe · 29/01/2011 15:04

Beenbeta to add to your point ...and the terrible environmental cost.

M.T. btw was the first 'serious' poiltician to put 'green' issues on the mainstream political agenda.

VoluptuaGoodshag · 29/01/2011 15:06

Yes it's a shit job but there were (and are) no other jobs for them. I imagine every miner would prefer to do something else but if there is no other means of putting food on the table then they have little choice.

They are a proud lot the miners and rightly so. They did a shit job for centuries to keep this country in fuel and were sold down the river by way of thanks.

spongefingerssavedmylife · 29/01/2011 15:18

Alouise - thank you for your excellent posts.

Still waiting for the alternative to the mines closing...

Everyone who thinks there is anyway that Britain can compete with extractive and manufacturing industry agains China / India etc needs to go and do some reading.

Because our wages are high it makes production costs high, higher than eg China. So no one will the stuff we make becuase it's too expensive. Also our coal seams are deep, narrow and difficult to mine thus making our coal even more expensive.

One point not yet mentioned (unless I missed) is that Thatcher was one of, if not the, to express concern about environmental matter esp Global Warming and to suggest that co-ordinated global action was needed.

spongefingerssavedmylife · 29/01/2011 15:20

X-post candleshoe!

EdgarAleNPie · 29/01/2011 16:13

We buy everything in and we make practically nothing. How is this good economics?

simply not true.

first wrong because: the UK is the worlds 7th largest manafactrer
second wrong because: services and technology generate import revenue too
third wrong because the majority of profit from an item sold in this country is kept by the retailer - the 5p per item that goes to India/China is nothing to the £3 kept by Tescos.

EdgarAleNPie · 29/01/2011 16:17

Grace, during the 60's people like my parents, if they worked, had no protection at all - because they were temps paid in cash. no Ni, no holidays, no mat bens, no discrimination legislation...

summary dismissal quite often happened.

please stop looking at the past with your pink specs on.

spongefingerssavedmylife · 29/01/2011 16:22

Also women were often sacked when they got married let alone had a baby.

EdgarAleNPie · 29/01/2011 16:23

Later this year, SWC, employers will gain the right to dismiss workers summarily for perceived inefficiency.

..though undoubtedly there will be a process developed by employers to make that work in a manner that will be fair and perceived as fair. Otherwise existing ligisalationwould still apply - ie if he process isn't followed to the letter, the employee gains an automatic win.

tb · 29/01/2011 16:24

My parents were 11 and 3 when the war ended. My father started work at 14 and, 35 years later, through sheer hard work and ability was paid a salary of around 6x the average income.

My mother left school at 17 and remained a typist.

My father went to work so that his sister, the eldest, could go to college. Later he bought the house his parents lived in - he was at sea 11 months of the year.

When John Prescott called the NUS out on strike in 1966, he tore his Merchant Navy badge off his blazer he was so ashamed and didn't want anyone to ever realise that he had been a serving naval officer. When at sea he considered that he was not only working for his employer, but also serving his country as the ships on which he served were troopers for the British Army.

He would no more thought of striking than no standing and singing the National Anthem at Remembrance Services. After all, he had memories of 2 world wars, which resulted in him leaving school at 14 and seeing many friends and colleagues die.

In the 1970's industry could only work for 3 days a week due to power cuts caused by a shortage on mined coal, as most power stations were coal-fired. Yes, no electricity, no heating - central heating pumps need electricity, no fires because there was no coal or smokeless fuel.

This affected schools too. I worked for my 'O' levels during these winters. The examiners made no concessions for the fact that many children would have not been able to study during the evenings in winter due to lack of light or hot food. Only people who lived near hospitals etc and got their power direct from the national grid as a result would have had electricity 24 hours a day.

In the last days of the Callaghan government Britain was so nearly bankrupt that every decision made by the Chancelor of the Exchequer had to be cleared by the IMF who were lending (G)B the money to keep going on a day to day basis.

The top level of income tax was 100%.
With a net income after tax, NI and pension contributions I received less per month than the maintenance grant for a student for whom I was paying. I paid income tax at the 'standard rate' - 33% - yes 1/3 of my £2000pa salary.

The Thatcher government reduced income tax because it has been proved over and over again that reducing rates of direct tax increases the income from those taxes. In simple terms, when tax rates are perceived as reasonable it's not worth paying an accountant and tax expert £x00 per hour to save very little.

When poll tax was introduced it was presented badly. Wat Tyler led the peasants' revolt on the grounds of 'no taxation without representation'. He did not ask for representation without taxation which was what happened with local rates. It was possible for families who paid neither local nor national taxes to vote for expensive policies for which they would not be asked to pay.

In our road in the north west, we lived next door to an elderly widow and opposite was a family with 3 adult 'children' all working. Under the rating system they paid the same per house towards local services. Fair? No.

The community charge, its proper name, sought to remove this gross unfairness in ensuring that all those adults who were eligible to vote were expected to make a contribution to the services they obtained. A bit like 'the polluter pays' with car tax etc.

Under the rating system we paid more in general rates on our grotty 30s semi in south manchester than Michael Hesletine paid on his Georgian townhouse in London. As a couple we had neither his capital nor his income.

In retirement my parents' income was high enough (just) for them to pay income tax as my mother worked beyone retirement age and my father had a small occupational pension, and at the same time exclude them from all benefits such as rate rebate, etc etc.

My mil had never worked and so had a state pension based on my late fil's contribution record. She had more disposal income as she had her rent paid, her rates paid, and extra allowances for heating and food due to poor health. She spent the extra allowances on cigarettes as she preferred to smoke than eat. Both my pils, with mil's brother' were members of the British Communist Party before, during and after the second world war.

My fil believed, like Gordon Brown, in the establishment of a Marxist utopia at whatever cost. He believed that the only reason that Communism/Marxism hadn't worked in the USSR was that it hadn't been tried 'properly'.

The early Christian Church began with people living in a way similar to Communism. They found that it didn't work on a long term basis, as equality of outcome doesn't exist given human nature. If they found that it didn't work, I would be very surprised if anyone else could, as I could not think of a group of people with greater commitment.

Forcing equality of outcome doesn't work, giving the maximum of opportunity on an equal basis has a much better chance of success or prosperity.

Oh and just before anyone says it's all right for you - my parents were so hard up after inflation took off in about 1962 that their combined income was below the limit for free school meals, something denied to me because the Labour Council didn't believe my direct grant school should benefit from them.

ItsGraceAgain · 29/01/2011 16:26

David Frost, the BCC's Director General, recently said to the Chambers of Commerce:

"Britain's manufacturing industry is alive and well; strong, productive and innovative. No longer the Cinderella sector, it is the powerhouse of the UK and will play a vital part in securing our future economic growth. But this revival has to be lasting and sustainable. The Government must prescribe the right policies to encourage growth and allow manufacturers to export their way out of the recession.

"British exports haven't grown as predicted ... Long-term Government support is vital ... While the UK is the 7th largest manufacturer in the world, it has witnessed a decline in its overall global share ... Problems during the recession, coupled with a lack of access to export finance for riskier markets, have left many British exporters in a weak position compared to rivals from exporting nations with access to state-backed schemes.

"Recommendations for improving exports amongst manufacturing firms include the creation of a state-backed trade credit insurance scheme; the broadening and simplification of R&D Tax Credits; clarification around the impact of a reduction of Capital and Investment Allowances on manufacturing firms; and improved education and better promotion of UK trade."

Sure we don't need 'big government'? Hmm

ItsGraceAgain · 29/01/2011 16:27

I shouldn't have said we make nothing. I've been trying to avoid over-dramatisation; I succumbed at that point.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.