Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cem_devecioglu]

Cem, it never ceases to amaze me how spectacularly you miss the point every single time

Unions lost their real purpose in the sixties, if not before. Without them we would still be a viable nation, producing much of everything an a global scale. I would go as far as to say that had militant union behaviour been outlawed in 1970, we might well have never had to endure this current mess

Regardless of whether you agreed with her policies or not, Margaret Thatcher earned respect from her peers and people in general by having strength of conviction, and probably did more for women in positions of responsibility than any union could ever dream of. History has judged her favourably, which is more than can be said of most politicians.

I'll say no more, as once again, you're starting to grate

Rest in Peace Margaret

ok.. if you are searching for someone who destroyed your economy , just look for the subject of privatisation
 
"During the Thatcher years, more than 50 companies were sold or privatised – including the dozens from the power and water industries – raising more than £50bn for the Exchequer.
As Parker points out, though, “Britain’s privatisation experiment began cautiously”, with the first utility-style sell-off the privatisation of the 22-strong British Transport Docks Board. It was privatised as Associated British Ports in 1983, subsequently floated and eventually sold to a consortium led by Goldman Sachs in 2006. "
 
if you think selling all those , will have no negative consequences on your economy in the future , no need to comment anymore..
 
remember we had passed similiar privatisation phases here.. and unfortunately I have lived long enough to see the consequences..
 
and no need to talk about telecom..
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/alistair-osborne/9980292/Margaret-Thatcher-one-policy-that-led-to-more-than-50-companies-being-sold-or-privatised.html

[mantahatch]

I appreciate I am guilty aswel but I have just visited one of my other forums which has a lot of members, mainly quite young about 17-30 would be average age.
It has 2 pages on this subject and there are people from both sides of the fence.

Up shot is people have stated there views and that is it. Does not appear to be any arguments between forum members or anything. Can post link if you would like to view it.

I wonder as I get older do we tend to moan more and criticize others more ?


Just my useless observations of course. 

[cleggy]

While we are on the subject of showing respect to the first woman Prime Minister and the longest serving, winning three general elections so that shows more in favour for her party than the other alternative using our first past the post electoral system.

Some labour MP's will not be in the commons today and several other members of fringe parties will show contempt by not attending ( thank god that moronic idiot Galloway is staying well clear, and his party is called RESPECT, tosser)

The point I digress from is the fact that the FA are critised for not showing her respect by holding a minutes silence before the weekends fixtures as reported in some newspapers. I actually agree that to do so would be a big mistake and not only would it show a total lack of respect with those football supporters who would show the whole game up by booing through the whole minute and tarninsh the game even more. It might be right for Twickenham but not in the football playground 

We saw the idiots dancing in the streets to the tune of the Socialist Workers Party, none who looked old enough to have been alive when she was in power or the problems she had to deal with. We don't need to give the retards another excused

[Elite Pete]

Cem, it never ceases to amaze me how spectacularly you miss the point every single time

Unions lost their real purpose in the sixties, if not before. Without them we would still be a viable nation, producing much of everything an a global scale. I would go as far as to say that had militant union behaviour been outlawed in 1970, we might well have never had to endure this current mess

Regardless of whether you agreed with her policies or not, Margaret Thatcher earned respect from her peers and people in general by having strength of conviction, and probably did more for women in positions of responsibility than any union could ever dream of. History has judged her favourably, which is more than can be said of most politicians.

I'll say no more, as once again, you're starting to grate

Rest in Peace Margaret

ok.. if you are searching for someone who destroyed your economy , just look for the subject of privatisation
 
"During the Thatcher years, more than 50 companies were sold or privatised – including the dozens from the power and water industries – raising more than £50bn for the Exchequer.
As Parker points out, though, “Britain’s privatisation experiment began cautiously”, with the first utility-style sell-off the privatisation of the 22-strong British Transport Docks Board. It was privatised as Associated British Ports in 1983, subsequently floated and eventually sold to a consortium led by Goldman Sachs in 2006. "
 
if you think selling all those , will have no negative consequences on your economy in the future , no need to comment anymore..
 
remember we had passed similiar privatisation phases here.. and unfortunately I have lived long enough to see the consequences..
 
and no need to talk about telecom..
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/alistair-osborne/9980292/Margaret-Thatcher-one-policy-that-led-to-more-than-50-companies-being-sold-or-privatised.html

I understand that Thatcher did a lot of good for this country and I also understand that a lot of these companies were in a bad way. It's a shame that this country that used to manufacture so much is now making virtually nothing but by selling them off we'll never know if they could have been turned around and all those skilled jobs and apprentiships that have dissapeared is so sad and I do blame the Thatcher Government for it

[05omegav6]

The trouble is Pete, that had they been able to operate effectively, then they would never have cost the taxpayers of the time so much money. In the end, selling them off to the highest bidder was the only way to stem those costs. Shutting the stable door behind the horse perhaps, but summat had to give

[Varche]

Parliament is being specially convened to hear tributes to Maggie!

Waste of MP time. Every year there are important issues that cannot be debated- insufficient time.

[STMO123]

Parliament is being specially convened to hear tributes to Maggie!

Waste of MP time. Every year there are important issues that cannot be debated- insufficient time.

A few are refusing to attend. Mostly labour MP's, I think.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Interesting statistics that lie behind the miners' strike:
 
1969 was the last year when coal accounted for more than half of Britain’s energy consumption. By 1970, when the Conservatives were elected, there were just 300 pits left – a fall of two thirds in 25 years.

By 1974 coal accounted for less than one third of energy consumption in Britain. Wilson’s incoming Labour government published a new Plan for Coal which predicted an increase in production from 110 million tonnes to 135 million tonnes a year by 1985. This was never achieved.

Margaret Thatcher’s government inherited a coal industry which had seen productivity collapse by 6 percent in five years. Nevertheless, it made attempts to rescue it. In 1981 a subsidy of £50 million was given to industries which switched from cheap oil to expensive British coal. So decrepit had the industry become that taxpayers were paying people to buy British coal.

The Thatcher government injected a further £200 million into the industry. Companies who had gone abroad to buy coal, such as the Central Electricity Generating Board, were banned from bringing it in and 3 million tonnes of coal piled up at Rotterdam at a cost to the British taxpayer of £30 million per year.

By now the industry was losing £1.2 million per day. Its interest payments amounted to £467 million for the year and the National Coal Board needed a grant of £875 million from the taxpayer.

The Monopolies and Mergers Commission found that 75 percent of British pits were losing money. The reason was obvious. By 1984 it cost £44 to mine a metric ton of British coal. America, Australia, and South Africa were selling it on the world market for £32 a metric ton.

Productivity increases had come in at 20 percent below the level set in the 1974 Plan for Coal.

Taxpayers were subsidising the mining industry to the tune of £1.3 billion annually. This figure doesn’t include the vast cost to taxpayer-funded industries such as steel and electricity which were obliged to buy British coal....

...She did not swoop in and kill perfectly good industries out of spite. Industries like coal and steel were already dead by the time she was elected. Thatcher just switched off the increasingly costly life support which had kept these zombie industries going.

John Phelan, 7 August 2012
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1497/thatcher_s_achievements_will_long_outlive_the_spite_of_sheffield_s_sons_and_daughters

 

That is the history I remember living through + Dockers refusing modernisation + BMC, a lame duck requiring constant infusion of government subsidy, unimaginative car development, and of course "brothers all out" the constant cry at Longbridge by Red Robbo, the Union convenor, who called over 500 strikes / disputes over just one year!  That is the mess our Maggie had to sort out!

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Getting back to the bigger picture - for those who werent around at the time or who have selective memories,Simon Heffer wrote an excellent article in the Wail today describing 1070,s Britian,pre Thatcher.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2306092/Margaret-Thatcher-dies-The-woman-saved-Britain--verdict-3-historians.html

Yep Albitz, again that is how it was for us who lived through it, and historians will remember the precipice the UK was about to go over when Maggie came to power.

[cem_devecioglu]

The trouble is Pete, that had they been able to operate effectively, then they would never have cost the taxpayers of the time so much money. In the end, selling them off to the highest bidder was the only way to stem those costs. Shutting the stable door behind the horse perhaps, but summat had to give

think of an organisation that is a monopoly in its area.. some famous Thatcher copies here sell them for the reason that they cant make profit..   how could this be..    even kids wont believe this lie.. and so many other things..
 
is it the correct way to sell something so valuable to community instead of restructuring and re-organisation.. and then later pump the taxpayers more money to some lucky relative individuals..  for that privatisation subject,  whoever says anything I'll be completely deaf..

[jimac]

The trouble is Pete, that had they been able to operate effectively, then they would never have cost the taxpayers of the time so much money. In the end, selling them off to the highest bidder was the only way to stem those costs. Shutting the stable door behind the horse perhaps, but summat had to give

think of an organisation that is a monopoly in its area.. some famous Thatcher copies here sell them for the reason that they cant make profit..   how could this be..    even kids wont believe this lie.. and so many other things..
 
is it the correct way to sell something so valuable to community instead of restructuring and re-organisation.. and then later pump the taxpayers more money to some lucky relative individuals..  for that privatisation subject,  whoever says anything I'll be completely deaf..

Really Cem, you had to be there.  The nationalised industries were a standing joke, not just for the way they were so inefficiently run and bleeding money down the drain, but for the pathetic levels of service they provided.  Nickbat already gave some examples of that, and somebody else has also pointed out how we had to go on a waiting list to have a phone installed (and even then, we may have had to share the line with a neighbour).  And there was no option but to deal with these monopolies.  Just to stick with the phone example, it was illegal - yes, actually illegal - to connect a device to the telephone network that was not provided by the GPO, and those devices (telephones and answering machines) were rented to the user as it was impossible to buy any privately.

Monopolies should make huge profits, but although it is hard for you to believe, the British nationalised industries didn't (or at least, I can't think of any that did - electricity, gas, coal, steel, railways, ship building, post, telecommunications, buses).  They were funded by the taxpayer, which meant there was no incentive to operate efficiently as they had almost limitless access funds whenever they needed it.

The world, and especially Britain, was a very different place in the 1970's from what it is today.  I would say that the world today is very different from what it would have been if Margaret Thatcher had not come along.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Parliament is being specially convened to hear tributes to Maggie!

Waste of MP time. Every year there are important issues that cannot be debated- insufficient time.

A few are refusing to attend. Mostly labour MP's, I think.

Dennis Skinner at a guess.

[STMO123]

I believe she'd only been in hell for three hours and she closed two furnaces down.

[cem_devecioglu]

The trouble is Pete, that had they been able to operate effectively, then they would never have cost the taxpayers of the time so much money. In the end, selling them off to the highest bidder was the only way to stem those costs. Shutting the stable door behind the horse perhaps, but summat had to give

think of an organisation that is a monopoly in its area.. some famous Thatcher copies here sell them for the reason that they cant make profit..   how could this be..    even kids wont believe this lie.. and so many other things..
 
is it the correct way to sell something so valuable to community instead of restructuring and re-organisation.. and then later pump the taxpayers more money to some lucky relative individuals..  for that privatisation subject,  whoever says anything I'll be completely deaf..

Really Cem, you had to be there.  The nationalised industries were a standing joke, not just for the way they were so inefficiently run and bleeding money down the drain, but for the pathetic levels of service they provided.  Nickbat already gave some examples of that, and somebody else has also pointed out how we had to go on a waiting list to have a phone installed (and even then, we may have had to share the line with a neighbour).  And there was no option but to deal with these monopolies.  Just to stick with the phone example, it was illegal - yes, actually illegal - to connect a device to the telephone network that was not provided by the GPO, and those devices (telephones and answering machines) were rented to the user as it was impossible to buy any privately.

Monopolies should make huge profits, but although it is hard for you to believe, the British nationalised industries didn't (or at least, I can't think of any that did - electricity, gas, coal, steel, railways, ship building, post, telecommunications, buses).  They were funded by the taxpayer, which meant there was no incentive to operate efficiently as they had almost limitless access funds whenever they needed it.

The world, and especially Britain, was a very different place in the 1970's from what it is today.  I would say that the world today is very different from what it would have been if Margaret Thatcher had not come along.

Jimac, thanks for your effort to explain.. just consider this scenario..
 
a rich arab with a long digit bank account comes one day.. pays the money and buys all of your already privatised assets for their double value..  none of the owners will object.. as profit is the primary goal.. and the next day quadruples all the prices from telecom to steel, oil to health, harbors to transportation, water to electricity etc etc..  and with all that power the second day he will declare himself to be the master.. 3rd day you will be foreigners in your country.. will you accept that ?
 
of course my example is a bit exaggerated but the truth actually not far from that unfortunately..
 
here there are lots of threads and posts that members mentioning that your country not same as before..
 
please stay and think about that..
 
ps: my people were also lied in the same style , many things happened.. and after an earth quake in year 1999,
all communications and transportation stopped.. and everyone was asking for the state.. where are they..
sadly it was buried some time ago by the privatisation.. and the results were a disaster..
 
there was a massive need for loaders to open the roads.. here in my city there were thousands of them sleeping at a park because they were all private.. and none of the owners take responsibnility and tried to help..

people in those collapsed homes clean the rubbles with bare hand
 
so please no one tries to convince me with the same story..

[Lizzie_Zoom]

The trouble is Pete, that had they been able to operate effectively, then they would never have cost the taxpayers of the time so much money. In the end, selling them off to the highest bidder was the only way to stem those costs. Shutting the stable door behind the horse perhaps, but summat had to give

think of an organisation that is a monopoly in its area.. some famous Thatcher copies here sell them for the reason that they cant make profit..   how could this be..    even kids wont believe this lie.. and so many other things..
 
is it the correct way to sell something so valuable to community instead of restructuring and re-organisation.. and then later pump the taxpayers more money to some lucky relative individuals..  for that privatisation subject,  whoever says anything I'll be completely deaf..

Really Cem, you had to be there.  The nationalised industries were a standing joke, not just for the way they were so inefficiently run and bleeding money down the drain, but for the pathetic levels of service they provided.  Nickbat already gave some examples of that, and somebody else has also pointed out how we had to go on a waiting list to have a phone installed (and even then, we may have had to share the line with a neighbour).  And there was no option but to deal with these monopolies.  Just to stick with the phone example, it was illegal - yes, actually illegal - to connect a device to the telephone network that was not provided by the GPO, and those devices (telephones and answering machines) were rented to the user as it was impossible to buy any privately.

Monopolies should make huge profits, but although it is hard for you to believe, the British nationalised industries didn't (or at least, I can't think of any that did - electricity, gas, coal, steel, railways, ship building, post, telecommunications, buses).  They were funded by the taxpayer, which meant there was no incentive to operate efficiently as they had almost limitless access funds whenever they needed it.

The world, and especially Britain, was a very different place in the 1970's from what it is today.  I would say that the world today is very different from what it would have been if Margaret Thatcher had not come along.

Jimac, thanks for your effort to explain.. just consider this scenario..
 
a rich arab with a long digit bank account comes one day.. pays the money and buys all of your already privatised assets for their double value..  none of the owners will object.. as profit is the primary goal.. and the next day quadruples all the prices from telecom to steel, oil to health, harbors to transportation, water to electricity etc etc..  and with all that power the second day he will declare himself to be the master.. 3rd day you will be foreigners in your country.. will you accept that ?
 
of course my example is a bit exaggerated but the truth actually not far from that unfortunately..
 
here there are lots of threads and posts that members mentioning that your country not same as before..
 
please stay and think about that..
 
ps: my people were also lied in the same style , many things happened.. and after an earth quake in year 1999,
all communications and transportation stopped.. and everyone was asking for the state.. where are they..
sadly it was buried some time ago by the privatisation.. and the results were a disaster..
 
there was a massive need for loaders to open the roads.. here in my city there were thousands of them sleeping at a park because they were all private.. and none of the owners take responsibnility and tried to help..

people in those collapsed homes clean the rubbles with bare hand
 
so please no one tries to convince me with the same story..

Maybe not Cem, but our government would through the Monopolies Commission that would stop that move in it's tracks.   

There must be competition in our capitalist democracy