Margaret Thatcher (1925 - 2013)

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

His post claimed that she kill manufacturing, mining, and unions. I doubt supporting Pol Pot caused that.

Furthermore, he doesn't explain how she "inspired people." If you asked me why Obama is killing America, I could write upwards of 500 words just on how Obamacare is doing it.

I'd at least mention the specific legislation and let you figure out the rest. Chipper hasn't even done that, he hasn't even given generals on exactly how she accomplished this. All he's providing is liberal hysteria.

You say you could do this a lot.

I have never actually seen you do it.

Go ahead, keep defending a completely baseless stance about a foreign political entity to people from the country in question, though, it's in good taste and also not condescending in the least.

I'm just wondering why Thatcher didn't get a separate topic. I think she's notable enough to merit it.

Freezer wrote:

I'm just wondering why Thatcher didn't get a separate topic. I think she's notable enough to merit it.

You posted Percy Pringle in here.

That makes it impossible for anyone to get their own thread.

Oh, hay. Check this out!

WD40 wrote:

Oh, hay. Check this out!

Quote :

Perceived wisdom is also that manufacturing disappeared under Thatcher. If so, it was something that had already started. In 1970, manufacturing accounted for 20.57% of UK GDP. By 1979 that was down to 17.62% of GDP. By the time she left office, that decline had continued - albeit at a slightly slower pace, down to 15.18%. Now it is much lower, according to the ONS - down to 9.86% in 2010.

Yes, clearly Thatcher killed manufacturing.

But, and I'm seriously curious, what exact policies did she enact that supposedly cause all the fuss? Stop shitting your pants at me and answer the question I've been asking for a fucking page. Not only am I genuinely interested, I want to see if any of you can explain exactly what she did and how it ruined things, instead of completely confusing correlation with causation when the manufacturing of pretty much every affluent country has been down the shitter since the 70s, regardless of their policies. For example

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

WD40 wrote:

Oh, hay. Check this out!

Quote :

Perceived wisdom is also that manufacturing disappeared under Thatcher. If so, it was something that had already started. In 1970, manufacturing accounted for 20.57% of UK GDP. By 1979 that was down to 17.62% of GDP. By the time she left office, that decline had continued - albeit at a slightly slower pace, down to 15.18%. Now it is much lower, according to the ONS - down to 9.86% in 2010.

Yes, clearly Thatcher killed manufacturing.

But, and I'm seriously curious, what exact policies did she enact that supposedly cause all the fuss? Stop shitting your pants at me and answer the question I've been asking for a fucking page. Not only am I genuinely interested, I want to see if any of you can explain exactly what she did and how it ruined things, instead of completely confusing correlation with causation when the manufacturing of pretty much every affluent country has been down the shitter since the 70s, regardless of their policies. For example

I answered this in one of my previous posts. From here:

Quote :

Her policy of reducing government intervention in the economy was great for the financial sector, but drove many manufacturing firms out of business. Many British manufacturers had been dependent on government subsidy.

I've found another link here:

Quote :

He said: "It could be considered that the West Midlands was hit particularly hard with the collapse of the manufacturing industry, which was not being helped by three economic Thatcher policies.

"High interest rates, the increase in VAT and loss of tax incentives were the most prominent policies to affect West Midland manufacturing."

It should also be noted that Thatcher's policies didn't end when she left power. Much of what she started was continued by her successors in both the Conservative and Labour parties.

Quote :

Her policy of reducing government intervention in the economy was great for the financial sector, but drove many manufacturing firms out of business. Many British manufacturers had been dependent on government subsidy.

So she stopped propping up dead businesses that couldn't provide a product people wanted by using the money of successful businesses that satisfied the wants and needs of the population?

I see no problems here. Those companies were failing, and instead of quietly dying like they were supposed to, they decided to burden the entire country by mooching off of them. Cutting the subsidies and letting the losers die frees up resources for the successful companies that the people clearly want more. It's a good thing.

Everyone always BAWWWWs about the POOR WORKERS!!1! They can get work in and industry that isn't a colossal failure. Regardless, are you going to burden the entire nation with one obviously irrelevant sector's problems to "help" the people in that sector?

Stop saying Thatcher killed manufacturing when all she did was put down a sick dog.

Quote :

"High interest rates, the increase in VAT and loss of tax incentives were the most prominent policies to affect West Midland manufacturing."

Loss of tax incentives is a good thing. Having less dipshit loopholes and whatnot allows you to spread the burden around more, at a lighter rate, and that is what usually works best. It allows businesses and people to compete on an even basis, which allows the good ones to distinguish themselves while the bad ones meet oblivion.

What do you mean "interest rates"? Are you talking about something like America's discount rate, the rate at which the government (through the Federal Reserve, in our case) loans money to banks on a short term basis in order to cover short term liquidity problems? I'm not sure what the reasoning behind doing that in a rough economic environment. Usually, one does the opposite in order to encourage the banks lending, which theoretically will fuel business activity.

Increasing the Value Added Tax also seems like questionable policy.

For those who don't know and haven't been paying attention to the Celebrity Death thread, Margaret Thatcher passed away. I figured she was a big enough figure to merit a full News post.

If nothing else, it'll keep the Death thread from going even more off the rails than it already has and can put the ongoing debate in it's own space.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Separate post is up. I would respectfully suggest all futher debate/posery take place there instead of here.

Note to the mods: Is there any way to move the relevant posts from here to there?

I split the conversation from the "All Purpose Death" thread and merged it with with this one, so the conversation will flow in under one topic. Thank you for making a separate topic, Freezer!

God damn it

Being an ass isn't as much fun if it's on topic.

Mikey Go WOOGA: Trying WAAAAAAAY too hard since 2006.

Freezer wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA: Trying WAAAAAAAY too hard since 2006.

I think I was "here" in 2005.

I was on GAFF before Guru had the nerve to get cancer.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Freezer wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA: Trying WAAAAAAAY too hard since 2006.

I think I was "here" in 2005.

I was on GAFF before Guru had the nerve to get cancer.

I know, right? What a selfish asshole.

Not being funny, but the miners destroyed themselves.

My Dad tells me that before Thatcher, they were striking constantly. Who suffered because of this? The people, that's who - it's everyone else who was left without power.

I'm all in favour of workers' unions to protect their rights, but they held the country to ransom too many times. Everyone became so fed up of the constant power cuts that they begged for "someone to do something about those unions!". At least this is how my Dad tells it - considering he was alive at the time, and witnessed these constant power cuts due to miners' strikes, I think he knows more about it than most of you.

Bear in mind that this isn't in defence of Thatcher herself. Only her actions against the miners' unions. I don't agree with a lot of what she did. I will, however, say that every Prime Minister since her has been far worse. In fact this country hasn't had competent leadership since I've lived here, and the reason for this is because everyone votes for what they consider the "lesser of two evils", making sure that the Big Two remain in power, swapping places every so often, and no other party has a chance at leadership.

Cunny wrote:

In fact this country hasn't had competent leadership since I've lived here, and the reason for this is because everyone votes for what they consider the "lesser of two evils", making sure that the Big Two remain in power, swapping places every so often, and no other party has a chance at leadership.

Ahahahahahaha

hahaha

hahaha...

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Cunny wrote:

In fact this country hasn't had competent leadership since I've lived here, and the reason for this is because everyone votes for what they consider the "lesser of two evils", making sure that the Big Two remain in power, swapping places every so often, and no other party has a chance at leadership.

Ahahahahahaha

hahaha

hahaha...

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

That's why everyone on here 'lubs' you mikey.

a million bonus points to whoever spelled Margaret wrong in the thread title

applause for you, dumbass

That would be Freezer. Burn him at the stake!

Or, you know, gently point out his mistake and have him correct it. You know, whichever. :p

Aggie wrote:

That would be Freezer. Burn him at the stake!

Or, you know, gently point out his mistake and have him correct it. You know, whichever. :p

Asking 'Wulf not to be abrasive and confrontational is like asking Mikey to stop trying to be Knorg Jr.

ETA: I can't edit the title. That's Mod Territory.

This man here puts it better than I ever could.

Also 'Ding Dong the Witch is Dead' is number one on itunes in the UK, tells ya something.

For fuck's sake stop calling Thatcher a witch.



It's offensive to actual witches.


Having said that, I'm pretty sure Aussies are going to be celebrating in a similar manner the day John Howard kicks the bucket. I know I will.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Quote :

Her policy of reducing government intervention in the economy was great for the financial sector, but drove many manufacturing firms out of business. Many British manufacturers had been dependent on government subsidy.

So she stopped propping up dead businesses that couldn't provide a product people wanted by using the money of successful businesses that satisfied the wants and needs of the population?

I see no problems here. Those companies were failing, and instead of quietly dying like they were supposed to, they decided to burden the entire country by mooching off of them. Cutting the subsidies and letting the losers die frees up resources for the successful companies that the people clearly want more. It's a good thing.

Everyone always BAWWWWs about the POOR WORKERS!!1! They can get work in and industry that isn't a colossal failure. Regardless, are you going to burden the entire nation with one obviously irrelevant sector's problems to "help" the people in that sector?

Stop saying Thatcher killed manufacturing when all she did was put down a sick dog.

Quote :

"High interest rates, the increase in VAT and loss of tax incentives were the most prominent policies to affect West Midland manufacturing."

Loss of tax incentives is a good thing. Having less dipshit loopholes and whatnot allows you to spread the burden around more, at a lighter rate, and that is what usually works best. It allows businesses and people to compete on an even basis, which allows the good ones to distinguish themselves while the bad ones meet oblivion.

You know, I almost believed you when you said you were genuinely interested. Now, however, you seem to have reverted to your usual wilful ignorance.

Quote :

What do you mean "interest rates"? Are you talking about something like America's discount rate, the rate at which the government (through the Federal Reserve, in our case) loans money to banks on a short term basis in order to cover short term liquidity problems? I'm not sure what the reasoning behind doing that in a rough economic environment. Usually, one does the opposite in order to encourage the banks lending, which theoretically will fuel business activity.

Pretty much.

Quote :

Increasing the Value Added Tax also seems like questionable policy.

It looks like you're beginning to see the problem with Thatcher. She was a lot of things, but competent wasn't even close to being one of them.

Anon wrote:

You know, I almost believed you when you said you were genuinely interested.

He is genuinely interested in the sense that hearing you describe this woman is making his willy hard.