Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
23 November 2009
17:1233740#1
to Mrs Thatcher
"You were a great leader and I want to thank you for the great service you gave to our country,"
A certain Gordon Brown at 10 Downing Street on the 23rd November 2009 when unveiling a new portait of Mrs T, the only PM to have such a portrait there during their lifetime.
Apparently some of the guests joked that they could stage a coup, Brown was the only Labour politician present. Now I wonder what he is up to, specially as he has previously said some very nasty things about her.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
23 November 2009
17:4933743#2
he also said to her "We admire your determination, resolution and courage."
I have found some of the things he has previously said about her.
"Britain's first woman prime minister has done conspicuously little for Britain's women."
"Britain can no longer survive, far less prosper, on the simplicities of Margaret Thatcher's capitalism."
"Poverty does not concern Mrs Thatcher."
"The Thatcher government has not only failed to prepare our economy for the 1990s but failed to advance our quality of life in the 1980s."
"She plans to eradicate the right to education and the health and social services as we know them."
"As support for Mrs Thatcher's policies of social division dwindles she will discover that there are simply not enough City speculators without a conscience to keep her in power."
Well at least he has now seen the truth. But then truth is a variable concept for him.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
23 November 2009
17:5333744#3
it is only the same principle as saying something positive about the deceased at a funeral.
simply good manners.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
23 November 2009
18:3333753#4
True Howard and, after all, Brown is well used to saying many things he does not believe...
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
23 November 2009
18:4433757#5
He has got some good points there in your second post Barry.
This has always been something that I have always felt quite personal about. Mrs T was voted in 3 days after I was born and then I helped to vote the Conservatives out on my 18th birthday, I really am one of Thatcher's children, probably the reason I am so self-consumed! Little did I know on my 18th birthday (as probably one of the yougest voters in the country) that I was actually voting her in again...in male form.
"Britain's first woman prime minister has done conspicuously little for Britain's women."
True feminists have little time for Thatcher, noting that ironically she did little for their cause, and Mrs T has been quite open about this being true.
"Britain can no longer survive, far less prosper, on the simplicities of Margaret Thatcher's capitalism."
Well I wouldn't call it hers, more Friedmans, but we certainly do less for ourselves as a nation, or have the skills to do so. With the wonder of free market mentality we can always get someone else to do it cheaper. Of course taking this to it's obvious outcome we now moan about cheap european labour dominating our workforce (it's OK to exploit people as long as they don't want to live here, they are just playing us at her game!). Everything in this model is measured financially, a pretty grotesque approach.
"Poverty does not concern Mrs Thatcher."
Now it is impossible for me to gauge what concerned her at a personal level, but she certainly heavily promoted Individualism to an extent that would lead me to question her compassion for other. "Get off your backside and do something" I agree with, but let's face it we are talking 'self-determination' and that is about choice. People don't choose poverty...and let's face it if you really assigned to this idea then we could make a sound argument that hereditary peers and royalty have no place in this model.
"The Thatcher government has not only failed to prepare our economy for the 1990s but failed to advance our quality of life in the 1980s."
Economically as a nation collectively we certainly have less. As for quality of life, that's a hard one to gauge. People certainly have bigger TVs and are happier to get in debt to buy one, so I can't be sure on that one!
"She plans to eradicate the right to education and the health and social services as we know them."
Completely unfounded. Although she did implement the 'National Curriculum' and 'League tables' to state schools (not independents obviously), a pretty good way of kicking educational establishment whenever you like. In her defence I was the last academic year to recieve a grant for university, something New Labour put an end to.
As for the last one I think we all know there will always be enough greedy city types willing to screw us for eternity.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
23 November 2009
19:3633767#6
Interesting post DT1....
One by one...
Define 'true feminists' certainly the left wing 'wimmin' man haters that haunt the Labour Party would agree with your point. Mrs T believes in a meritocracy and that women should compete fairly in the market without 'all women shortlists' and other so called 'positive' discrimination that the feminist extremists want. It is these feminists who are selling women short and Mrs T who had taken on and beaten men in a mens world who showed the way it should be done, breaking once and for all that glass ceiling.
As for Friendman (and Hayak, who preceeded him) they set the economic model that saved the British economy from its post war terminal decline. Brown has done his best to resume that decline and once again the economy needs to be saved. The foolish economic errors of Brown/Blair owe nothing to her legacy or Friedman or Hayak. She would never have brought in the tri-partied system of banking regulation and 'light touch'. She would never have ignored the levels of debt in the economy while setting interest rates. She would never have let public spending to soar irresponsibly ahead of tax receipts. She was truly a fiscal Conservative and did not believe in living on credit. To try to associate her with the causes of todays woes is to totally misunderstand her and is a criminal misrepesentation. In her 10 years plus as PM she rejected to Blair/Brown approach consistently, what has been done over the last 12/13 years is not 'new'. I have copies of both great works, Free to Choose (Freidman) and The Road to Serfdom (Hayak) here in my office, both well thumbed and read more than once.
As for poverty, she felt strongly about bringing people up out of poverty. She knew the truth that State Benefits are not the way to do it. Only by enterprise and thier own hard work can people lift themselves out of poverty and that is even more important than a formal education. It needs prosperous businesess to do that in a string economy and that is where Friendman come in. then of course you can also generate the tax revenues to sustain a safety net and support for those incapable of pulling themselves up, the truly sick and disabled for instance along with the elderly. Yes, thats right, prosperous businesses and a strong economy must be achieved and is the most important factor to end poverty, things Labour always fail to achieve.
Once again the attitudes you refer to of people happy to live on debt with a big tv has been answered already. A middle class shopkeepers daughter like Mrs T of her generation would not approve of spending money you dont have and that sensible idea was transferred to Governing.
I will say that education reform was her big failure. She did not even attempt to wrest education away from the destructive infleunces of the left wing educational establishment. Her successes are so much greater though than her failures.
23 November 2009
19:4733769#7
Those left wing bearded ladies you are apparently scared of rarely exist!! It is not masculine to want properly equal opportunities to education and work, fair wages, decent childcare (Fathers and Mothers on this one!).
It is impossible to know what the terminally pragmatic Thatcher would have done in circumstances that occured after her disposal. The economy does not operate in isolation - the recession and crisis in banking is World news, not the fault of the UK. Thatcher famously had her head up close and personal with US presidents allimentary tracts and may well have followed their lead.
I totally agree that prosperous business and a strong economy are necessary to underpin social development and engineering, btu again they do not function in isolation. There is a symbiosis between the economy and society that Thatcher did not really grasp. neither does brown as he is too busy fire-fighting to step back and evaluate.
Ah, education. potentially the UKs best asset flushed away by Williams and never rescued by any shade of politician. I guess, again, as education structures do not operate in isolation it was inevitable that they would crumble under the weight of underfunding, lack of direction and support, meddling by those who do not understand, and apathy from politicians who will inevitably educate their kids privately.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
23 November 2009
23:1333787#8
Great post Bern!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
24 November 2009
07:5833794#9
Those 'bearded ladies' would scare a VC winner, Bern. But they do exist and they are there on display at Labour Conferences. Harriet Harman is most certainly one of these. You also misrepresent the situation, their definition is not 'equal opportunities' but positive discrimination and beaurocracy that places common sense on the back burner. I am sure this subject will crop up again for more detailed discussion when 'orrible 'arman comes forward with her so called Equalities Bill.
The simple fact is that Mrs T never did even contemplate what Brown did in her 10 years plus. There were voices urging her to do take a similar approach, independence for the BoE and'light touch'. OK she did free up the City, that was necessary but that was combined with the introduction of retail Financial Services regulation for the first time and she made sure the BoE kept a tight rein on the banks. You cannot deny that she had a very traditional attitude towards debt and her background and record most certainly shows how she would disapprove of the Brown Boom that was a leading cause of the bust.
You are also understating the role of the UK economy in what happened. Recessions always happen, they are cyclical, it was Brown who was deluded enough to think he had banned bust. He managed the economy in such a way that he clearly believed he had changed the laws of economics. We had a massive 'stuctural debt' at the start of the recession due entirely to Brown. It is structural debt, that which will not be absorbed and repaid as a result of economic growth, that is the big problem created by Brown. It is that which is a massive problem and because of the recession has got worse. Add to that the regulatory changes Brown made, his failure to give the BoE an interest rate brief that incorporated personal borrowing levels, we had a recipe for turning a cyclical recession into a finanical disaster. It may suit Labour supporters to keep claiming the whole problem is a world recession and the Americans fault but they cannot avoid the responsibility Brown has for the severity it hit the UK. The evidence of Browns stupidity is there for all to see as most of the rest of the world climb from the pit we are still in. The there is the spending hangover that must be dealt with.
The reason Bern for Labour to keep driving the economy into the ground every time they obtain office is because they do not understand the needs of business. They spend other peoples money until they run out and burden business with regulation that is highly damaging. They are the ones who get that symbiosis wrong, time after time.
We are not a million miles away on the education issue and yes Shirley Williams was a disaster. I do admit that this was Mrs T's failure. Underfunding was not the problem here so much as political interference and ideology.
24 November 2009
08:2033797#10
We agree on the positive discrimination issue - but only because, due to some militancy and positive discrimination in the past it is no longer needed or effective!! (If Pankhurst et al had not been militant in their time, I would probably not be able to vote.......!!)In its time is was both of those things. HHarman does embarass me somewhat, it has to be said.....
We will have to agree to disagree about Thatcher - the shuddering social wreck that was and is Thatcher still causes me to despair of humanity in quiet, still moments....
I still do not believe that the UK was any more (or less) responsible than other wealthy nations in this recession. UK needs to bear its guilt but not beat its breast.
I suppose it is futile to point out that Labour inevitably inherits Tory mistakes and vice versa, and that by the time some of them come to light they are viewed as the miseeeds of the current government.....? Actually, I don't disagree about Labour and business, although I don't think Tory business proposals are any more palatable, for different reasons. neither seems to have found a decent middle ground sans ideology.
I despair for the education system, BarryW - free, enlightening education should be a given in a decent and wealthy, free society. No need for the mickey mouse degrees in sock darning and canary husbandry if children were enabled to find their own metier and had the opportunity to follow their pathway, supported and encouraged by society, and valued for their contribution. This system makes me sad.
There - rant over!!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
24 November 2009
11:0333806#11
some interesting stuff there from bern, barry and dt, had to read most of it twice to take it all in.
my own very simplistic view is that politicians tend to use education as a political football, where i think that it is best left to local authorities(normally less ideological than central government) to decide what is best on their patch.