Andrew Marr The History of Modern Britain

jamescredmond

dervish wrote: »

Why prolong the inevitable.?


Mrs Thatcher brought prosperity to millions of people.

Middle England has never really looked back tho the Labour lot are trying to tax us back down to the working class levels.

People who criticise Mrs Thatcher are bitter and jealous of those who profited in the true capilastistic style. They think its cool to have a go at someone when they werent around to judge for themsemleves.

well, dervish: I was around, and I didn't like what I saw.

nearly 20yrs later and this woman and her legacy continue to divide the country.

this isn't perhaps the best forum to get all politicky but I can't help myself, having consumed a little whiskey:

I read regularly - on this site and others - remeniscences of how relaxed/ordered/contented life was before the thatch revolution.

I clearly remember 2 polls conducted in the late 80's that strongly suggested that, while the nation had become wealthier, the quality of life had fallen.

I'm post 40 now and looking to buy a sports car, to prove to all that I'm having a mid-life crisis. but some of me says: 'a return to a proper set of values and be happy with a push-bike that you won't get kicked off on a sat. night, returning from work'.

I don't blame thatch personally for the social breakdown; more the movement that she led and the cult of 'individualism'.

ftr: I consider myself working-class. not proud of it but not ashamed either.

I don't blame anyone who aspires to better things: I just have a problem with the way some go about it. no 'jealousy' from me.

and finally: can you please stop with the 'prosperity of millions' stuff?
she impoverished more than a few whilst she went about it.

now, if you'll excuse me. I can't find the soda to go with my next glass of malt. (or maybe I should don a flat cap and open a bottle of stout?).

all the best.

StevieJ

dervish wrote: »

Why prolong the inevitable.?


Mrs Thatcher brought prosperity to millions of people.

Middle England has never really looked back tho the Labour lot are trying to tax us back down to the working class levels.

People who criticise Mrs Thatcher are bitter and jealous of those who profited in the true capilastistic style. They think its cool to have a go at someone when they werent around to judge for themsemleves.

From what I remember she had a personal vendetta against the miners, in addition she moved British manufacturing from net positive exporter to negative, moved power stations onto gas thus making coal uneconomic i.e reduced outlets. Maybe the gas would have lasted longer if we had a true integrated energy policy and who is to say that new technology could not have made coal both clean and economic in the future. She also set the seeds of todays problems i.e. the overreliance on financial services. I will not even mention political oportunism in other areas.
But of course it truly is an ill wind that blows nobody any good, so I am sure a number benefited in true capitalistic style.
She is also famous of course for removing nourishing food from young schoolchildren where she earned her infamous nickname 'The milk snatcher'
In playgrounds, children taunt her for cutting off their free milk by chanting: "Mrs. Thatcher, milk snatcher!"
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,905853,00.html

jamescredmond

I'm only going to add this, stevie: her antipathy towards the miners ( and, ergo, the NUM) was never confirmed but strong suspicions persist that she was spoiling for a fight long before she became PM. she never forgot/forgave heath for his capitulation over the 72/74 disputes and determined to 'put the boot in'. a vendetta, IMO, regardless of future
(and clean) energy -techo advances, obviously.

I supported the miners in the 84 dispute from a distance (didn't want to be thought of as a 5th columnist). what made me angry(amongst other things) was her tv appearance, calling the miners the 'enemy within' - comparing them with the argentinians (falklands) as the 'enemy without'.

picking a fight with the miners, and winning, proved a pyrrhic victory.(spelling). this single act ensured, more than anything, a split nation.

my 'friends in the north' tell me there are huge coal seams still untapped, but re-opening a mine is hugely expensive. brilliant.

her refusal to push forward a settlement of the N.Ireland problem is another failure that the lickass right-wing refuse to apologize for. that, though, is another story.

bed-time.

all the best.


p.s. my claim to fame: police nicked me in y'shire and slung me in a cell for 12hrs on suspicion of joining pickets at orgreave. in reality, I was on my way to see sis for a b/day party! happy days!

baby_boomer

Ah the Battle of Orgreave. Where modern Britain was born .

Isn't perspective a funny thing, James. I once sat next to Enoch Powell at a dinner and he, as a NI Unionist MP, could hardly bear to hear Thatcher's name mentioned as a long term traitor to the Union .

boyse7en wrote: »

BG - prices went up how much this year? 20-30% on top of 10-15% rises earlier

Wholesale energy price rises, coupled with our increasing dependence on overseas energy are the reasons for these increases. Are you saying that the government would have subsidised us all if they continued to run energy supply in the inefficient way to which we had become accustomed?

General subsidies are not Gordon's thing. He prefers targeted help to those in fuel poverty - except he can't afford to meet his own targets as recession looms.

Sapphire

StevieJ wrote: »

In the 50s and 60s there was hope in the future, company pensions were the future, the talk was about what people would do with the increased leisure time.
In those days kids could leave school at 16 or 18 and enter a profession with 0 or A levels, now they need a degree. I think todays kids are experiencing real hardship, drugs that suck in and destroy lives , yes they have a choice but fortunately kids in the 50's and 60,s didn't.
No I don't think the young have it easy now.

Yes, it is true that in the 50s and 60s there was hope for the future when it came to pensions, and also what you say about education is correct. I cannot understand the logic of propelling everyone to go to college – often to get useless degrees in things like media studies – which are actually of no practical value and just tie them to debt for several years after they have left college.

Drugs were very much around in the 60s and many people used them. However, there was also much more for kids to do in the way of youth clubs, brownies, girl guides, etc (sneered at these days). They also had far better role models to look up to than they do today.

However, my point was that life in general was much harder for many than it is now. Those with large families often lived in small rented flats, and they had no central heating and no hot water. As an example, my mother had to boil water in huge pans in order to produce hot water; she got up at 6 a.m. to put the paraffin heaters on when there was frost on the windows; three children shared a tiny room (two used bunk beds, one a fold-out bed); there was no TV (though perhaps that was an advantage); and in general she had to skimp and save. Such a situation is rare nowadays in the UK, where youth expects to buy property in its early twenties – property which it 'must' then 'gut' and 'improve' (generally on borrowed money) rather than making do, like people used to.

Those bought up in the 50s and 60s, who did experience some hardship (relatively speaking) are therefore probably better prepared for a downturn than the youth of today.

Sapphire

jamescredmond wrote: »

I'm only going to add this, stevie: her antipathy towards the miners ( and, ergo, the NUM) was never confirmed but strong suspicions persist that she was spoiling for a fight long before she became PM. she never forgot/forgave heath for his capitulation over the 72/74 disputes and determined to 'put the boot in'. a vendetta, IMO, regardless of future
(and clean) energy -techo advances, obviously.

Although if you lived in those days, you should also remember the strikes – it really was horrendous, with stoppages of public transport and three-day weeks, etc. The unions were too powerful, though I don't believe they should have been utterly defeated in the way they were.

baby_boomer

I once cleared out an old drawer which was lined with newspapers from the 1970s.

The front pages were entirely filled with news of national strikes harmful to the British economy.

You had to be there to understand how unspeakably appalling this was. How the country was held to ransom by union barons, time and time again. And similarly Thatcher's response - the Battle of Orgreave - would be unthinkable today. It was a fight to the death for the soul of Britain, and yes - there were bound to be casualties. Something had to give.

StevieJ

Sapphire wrote: »

Drugs were very much around in the 60s and many people used them. However, there was also much more for kids to do in the way of youth clubs, brownies, girl guides, etc (sneered at these days). They also had far better role models to look up to than they do today.

That is a gross misrepresentation, drugs were for all intents and purposes the preserve of rock stars and university students in the 50's and 60's, in recent times they have rapidly moved down the food chain to engulf the most vulnerable.

mewbie_2

StevieJ wrote: »

rapidly moved down the food chain to engulf the most vulnerable.

Arguably up the food chain.

Sapphire

StevieJ wrote: »

That is a gross misrepresentation, drugs were for all intents and purposes the preserve of rock stars and university students in the 50's and 60's, in recent times they have rapidly moved down the food chain to engulf the most vulnerable.

I wouldn't say it is a 'gross' misrepresentation: some of the working population also took drugs. Certainly, more 'vulnerable' people are exposed to drugs now, as they are to violence in the form of gut-wrenchingly violent video games and films. However, not all young people take drugs – I know many that don't, beyond the odd smoke. Kids need interesting things to do to be engaged, as well as the right sorts of role models to whom they can look up to. They certainly don't have the latter now.

In any case, this question is rather OT from the points I was making in my original emails …