[Archived] Baroness Thatcher Dies

[47er]

Abbey, thatcher saved the country and then went ott (imo at least). Jimmy Savile was a sad pathetic man who liked to @#/? kids. Bit of a difference.

If people are so angry at thatcher and her ideology, I trust they'll equally be angry with major, blair, brown, cameron and clegg; all of whom haven't reversed those thatcher legacies.

Saved the country! Have you noticed the state its in?

By the way Theno, Thatcher never won more than 44% of the vote at any of the 3 elections she fought and would have been a one- term PM but for the Falklands.

[thenodrog]

Piece of cake. Labour closed UNECONOMIC pits, ones where the seams were running out or the cost of maintaining the mine eg protection from flooding outweighed any profits.

You do realise don't you that Britain still relies on many coal-fired power stations? How are they kept running?

BY IMPORTING COAL----56 million tons of it a year at the last count!!! Meanwhile our own high-grade coal remains in the ground and scores of ex-mining communities are welfare dependent.

1. Shifting sands. The falling price of imported coal at that time and the increasing cost of producing our own meant that the economics of our coal production and our individual coal mines changed.

2. The value of the coal in the ground under us is therefore still increasing so does that effectively not represent 'money in the bank'? So again..... why did neither Blair nor Brown see fit to re-open the mines that were closed? Sounds like you would have done in their position and rem they had 13 years to do it after all.

[thenodrog]

Saved the country! Have you noticed the state its in?

By the way Theno, Thatcher never won more than 44% of the vote at any of the 3 elections she fought and would have been a one- term PM but for the Falklands.

1. Margaret Thatcher left No10 22 years ago! The UK was economically strong back then, it's the opposite now! Go figure.

2. You are guilty of trying to re-write history 47er. 79 was narrower but 83 and 87 were landslides.

However the election result without the Falklands effect can only be open to conjecture and not stated as fact as you are shamelessly attempting. What I do know is that the timing of the Falklands was in no way down to her as some people are being led to believe. It was down to the unpopular Military Junta in Argentina who decided to invade at that time. Gen Galtieri thought he would gain popularity by taking the Falklands off us but in effect he just gained electoral popularity for Mrs T. What I do know for sure is that the 83 election would have been dramatically changed if Thatcher had just rolled over and let the Argies win!! Sounds like you resent the fact that she didn't.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Have you had a bad career and not 'got on' Tyrone?

btw.... those nuts weren't part of the landing gear of a Jumbo jet were they? How about the cooling system filters at Sellafield?

Alternatively have you considered that without all that other leakage we could pay those OAP's who have worked hard all their lives twice or even three times as much?

I'm not complaining about my career, I've done ok, dodged lots of employment bullets over the years. I did well considering I chose a career in an industry that Mrs Thatcher decided we didn't need 15 years after I joined it. Plenty of workmates of mine got made redundant several times over. I Worked hard and played hard. I lost count of the engineering companies i visited to remove machinery when they'd closed in the Thatcher era and subsequent years. Plus all the auctions I attended at the same time when it was obvious that the guys buying up the equipment were all from abroad. It was always a sad occasion, " Clayton- Goodfellow " in Blackburn was particularly upsetting for me, all those Rovers stickers on lockers and cupboard etc.

I had the feeling it would be my turn one day and I wasn't far wrong. I got to fifty five before they got me. I was out of work for four weeks. Not a pleasant experience.

Re. The suspension. They were screws out of a guard that were damaged and had been replaced. I should have thrown them in the bin but I forgot. I'd crossed swords with the guy a day or two before and that was his way of getting his own back. He had a point but the way he dealt with the issue was pretty poor.

There were plenty of little Hitlers then, even at a time of fullish employment. At least you could bail out if it came to it. I feel sorry for people today who are just stuck.

[47er]

I note that you have made no reference whatsoever to the coal mines!! I take it you concede on that.

Secondly you seek to change the theme of the thread to the degree of Thatchers victories.

I repeat as a FACT that Thatcher never won more than 44% of the vote at ANY election.Contrary to your above statement Thachers biggest share of the vote actually came in 1979 with 43.9% of the vote wich then declined at the next 2 elections (despite the Falklands!). You are quite right to say that my assertion of defat without the Falklands can never be proved but it is a logical assumption. Certainly many Political observers with far more know-how than ourselves continue to make it.

The electoral system in UK is skewed towards big majorities because of the first past the post method of voting. So she had big majorities

But she was never as popular as her supporters make out.

Now, about those coal mines?

[47er]

A late PS Theno, Thatcher never won 400 seats for het party at any election. Blair did-----twice!

[47er]

1. Shifting sands. The falling price of imported coal at that time and the increasing cost of producing our own meant that the economics of our coal production and our individual coal mines changed.

2. The value of the coal in the ground under us is therefore still increasing so does that effectively not represent 'money in the bank'? So again..... why did neither Blair nor Brown see fit to re-open the mines that were closed? Sounds like you would have done in their position and rem they had 13 years to do it after all.

Sorry missed this one. Once coal mines are closed and the pumps don't work any more they cost an absolute fortune to reopen.

Money in the bank? Ah! Clever old Maggie, she wasn't destroying the coal industry, just saving it for a rainy day!

Britain was more prosperous in Maggie's day because the North Sea oil came to peak production and she had vast income from all the public utilities she privatised.You can only sell them once but you lose the profits forever.

It was all wasted, given back in tax cuts eg. The result is that Britain has an inadequate revenue base and all subsequent governments have been forced to borrow to close the gap between our aspirations and our revenue. That is the true Thatcher legacy.

The current Conservative goverment is, of course, the biggest borrowers of them all.

[Beta Ray Bill]

I didn't live under the "Thatch", thank goodness, but I know of a number of professional people (doctors, accountants etc) that emigrated because of her.

I have a similar dislike of John Howard for the same reasons.

Odious political idividuals trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of society.

To those that say she won X elections should remember that if the "Falklands" issue hadn't arisen, she probably would have lost, (as would Howard down here had the "Tampa" affair not happened).

Don't forget that the Labour party was lead into the '83 election by Michael Foot. That was like starting a league season on -10 points.

[thenodrog]

Michael Foot? Was that Margaret Thatchers fault too?

I rem it being said that the Labour Party manifesto in '83 was the longest suicide note in history.

[thenodrog]

A late PS Theno, Thatcher never won 400 seats for het party at any election. Blair did-----twice!

Really? And what was his legacy to the country? WMD that didn't exist? Deregulating the Bank of England from govt control? David Kelly?

[Sandiway Blue]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-dead-vile-outpouring-1829807

Never thought i would see this from a Labour paper but fair play to them for publishing it...and a well written but sadly accurate one too.

[47er]

Really? And what was his legacy to the country? WMD that didn't exist? Deregulating the Bank of England from govt control? David Kelly?

I'm saying to you that time has made Thatcher more popular in her supporters memories than was ever the case and I've provided the stats to prove it. I'm no particular fan of Blair but am merely pointing out that he was way more popuar in his time than Thatcher ever was.

Blair might have ad a better legacy to leave by the way if Thatcher hadn't done so much damage. He certainly wouldn't have borrowed so much to repair a broken-down infrastructure.

[Guest Norbert]

I wasn't really around during the early period of Thatcher, but it does seem that the country needed a short, very sharp shock of her moniterism in 1979. The problem was she hung on for 3 terms, believed in her own Iron lady hype and went a bit mad. The excesses of the unions needed to be challenged, but the 'revenge' that she and her acolytes so happily took part in caused a lot of problems long term. The capitalist free-for-all brought about by the deregulation of the financial sector, the privatisation of the utilities and the squandering of the North Sea oil in order to prop up her failing economic changes were her biggest mistakes.

Anyway, I'm not a fan of hers, but those who want to cause trouble at the funeral are idiots. She may be dead, but the ideology she backed lives on.

[jim mk2]

I see Thatcher's underclass offspring were reverting to type at Wembley on Saturday.

Blair had an almost impossible task in 1997 taking over from a discredited, corrupt govt that had mismanaged the economy for 19 years. He did a tour of the country and was showed at the state of the hospitals and school some of which would have disgraced a Third World country.

We go through this cycle every few decades - Tories wilfully neglecting the country's infrastructure and Labour having to repair the damage.

[Steve Moss]

I won't pretend to know much more than what I've read in the news and encyclopedia sites this week, as quite frankly I'm too young to remember or be directly affected by Thatcher's government's policies.

But what is clear is that she was a strong and decisive leader, something this country has been lacking since.

The country was in the gutter at the start of her reign and, quite frankly, it was a force again by the time she walked.

As for dancing on her grave and getting silly songs to number one...well, these actions alone speak more for the type of person you are than anything I could say.

Here's one conservative's take: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/345435/mrs-thatchers-losing-victory-mark-steyn?pg=2

A late PS Theno, Thatcher never won 400 seats for het party at any election. Blair did-----twice!

Doesn't this mean that if what Thatcher did was so wrong he should have had an easier time setting it right?

[Paul]

Alternatively have you considered that without all that other leakage we could pay those OAP's who have worked hard all their lives twice or even three times as much?

You're not looking at the figures which show clearly only 5% of payments is to the unemployed which is what I presume you mean by leakage. All other state benefits are available to those who qualify regardless of their employment status. Make your point by all means but at least think about the numbers first.

On the point of numbers several posters have demonstrated Maggie never enjoyed majority support nor a landslide victory. When are you going to give up on that bit of misinformation? Thatcher's majority in each of her winning elections was smaller than the following three Blair victories. I did post the actual figures for you a few days ago but she never achieved more than 43% of the vote, hardly a landslide.

[47er]

Here's one conservative's take: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/345435/mrs-thatchers-losing-victory-mark-steyn?pg=2

Doesn't this mean that if what Thatcher did was so wrong he should have had an easier time setting it right?

Eh? If she sold billions of pounds of assets and spent the money how could he set that right?

[thenodrog]

You're not looking at the figures which show clearly only 5% of payments is to the unemployed which is what I presume you mean by leakage. All other state benefits are available to those who qualify regardless of their employment status. Make your point by all means but at least think about the numbers first.

On the point of numbers several posters have demonstrated Maggie never enjoyed majority support nor a landslide victory. When are you going to give up on that bit of misinformation? Thatcher's majority in each of her winning elections was smaller than the following three Blair victories. I did post the actual figures for you a few days ago but she never achieved more than 43% of the vote, hardly a landslide.

Only a triviality but you are comparing apples and pears by quoting percentages. Tony Blair never polled more individual votes than Margaret Thatcher and thats that. Far fewer people were voting in the elections in which New labour gained power. Voter apathy was at it's peak in '97.

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

[thenodrog]

Eh? If she sold billions of pounds of assets and spent the money how could he set that right?

Dunno about your slant on it BUT I'm fairly certain that when in opposition he promised he would do.

I see Thatcher's underclass offspring were reverting to type at Wembley on Saturday.

Why? What happened at Wembley on saturday?

[jim mk2]

Only a triviality but you are comparing apples and pears by quoting percentages. Tony Blair never polled more individual votes than Margaret Thatcher and thats that. Far fewer people were voting in the elections in which New labour gained power. Voter apathy was at it's peak in '97.

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

Look at the graph again. The low point was in 2001, not 1997.

Like this government's policies, fail.

This decade is shaping up to be a rerun of the 1980s all over again - vindictive government, poverty levels rising with mass unemployment and now football hooligans have reared their ugly head.

Thatcher's legacy is alive and well.

[Steve Moss]

Eh? If she sold billions of pounds of assets and spent the money how could he set that right?

Well if the complaint is that she sold off the previously nationalized industries which was not in the UK's interests (something I disagree with), it would seem that Blair had the votes to re-nationalize them. And if he promised to do so what explains his failure?

As to the cost, if the UK could nationalize them once, why not again?

[Paul]

Only a triviality but you are comparing apples and pears by quoting percentages. Tony Blair never polled more individual votes than Margaret Thatcher and thats that. Far fewer people were voting in the elections in which New labour gained power. Voter apathy was at it's peak in '97.

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

And as usual you are ignoring the bits that don't fit your view / opinion. I posted the figures below in reply to one of your posts 5 days ago, here we go again:

Gordon I think the weight of numbers thing is in fact the other way round:

1979

Cons 43.9% of vote - votes cast 13.6m

Lab/Lib 50.7% of vote - 15.8m

1983

Cons 42.4% - 13m (down on 79)

Lab/Lib 53% - 16.3m (up on 79)

1987

Cons 42% - 13.7m (up on 83)

Lab/Lib 51.2% - 17.4 (up on 83)

We can look at percentages or we can look at individual votes cast for the parties. It doesn't matter which way it's viewed in none of her three election victories did Thatcher gain a landslide or take the majority of the popular vote. If you want to argue with the actual election results I ca't help but feel you're on a loser from the word off.

By the way your very own figures show vote apathy was at its peak (low) in 2001, not 1997. From 1959 to 1997 turnout was between 71 to 76% again your figures. So a bit of shifting here and there but basically pretty stable. Thanks for the info

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Well if the complaint is that she sold off the previously nationalized industries which was not in the UK's interests (something I disagree with), it would seem that Blair had the votes to re-nationalize them. And if he promised to do so what explains his failure?

As to the cost, if the UK could nationalize them once, why not again?

I don't recall Ramsay McBlair making such a promise. He's a closet Tory anyway. There used to be Lib dems that were more radical than Blair.

[thenodrog]

We can look at percentages or we can look at individual votes cast for the parties. It doesn't matter which way it's viewed in none of her three election victories did Thatcher gain a landslide or take the majority of the popular vote. If you want to argue with the actual election results I ca't help but feel you're on a loser from the word off.

There appears to be no concise definition of the term 'landslide' in relation to General Election results. However Wiki suggests a victory margin of 100+ seats can be classed as a lanslide and goes on to list the following..........

House of Commons of the United Kingdom

In general, any British general election which results in a majority of over 100 seats tends to be described as a landslide. Landslide victories since the Reform Act 1884 (the first time a majority of adult males could vote) are:

• The 1886 election: Unionist

  (Conservative Party and Liberal

  Unionist Party) overall majority of 116

• The 1895 election: Unionist

  overall majority of 152

• The 1900 election: Unionist

  overall majority of 134

• The 1906 election: Liberal Party

  overall majority of 128 (356 when assuming Labour and Irish Nationalist

  support)

• The 1918 election: Coalition overall majority of

  239

• The 1924 election:

  Conservative overall majority of 209

• The 1931 election: National government

  overall majority of 493 (including Conservative majority of 324)

• The 1935 election: National government

  overall majority of 247

• The 1945 election: Labour Party

  overall majority of 146

• The 1959 election:

  Conservative overall majority of 100

• The 1983 election:

  Conservative overall majority of 144

• The 1987 election:

  Conservative overall majority of 102

• The 1997 election: Labour

  overall majority of 179

• The 2001 election: Labour

  overall majority of 167

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Click Now Click this......

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sugexp=ekwqrh&gs_rn=9&gs_ri=psy-ab&cp=40&gs_id=7&xhr=t&q=1983+general+election+results+landslide'&es_nrs=true&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=1983+general+election+results+landslide'&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45175338,d.d2k&fp=de8f445f962f0fce&biw=1195&bih=520

[Guest Norbert]

I may be wrong here (I can't be bothered to look up the stats at this time of night), but because of our electoral system, it is probably rare that the winning party gets above 50% of the votes cast. That is discounting coalition governments.