A question to Labour supporters which Thatchers death

Over last 24 hours here has been some very good points made on both sides but one thing has never been answered so I was wondering if a Labour supporter could answer it for me:

There are many policies which the left disagreed with but as Labour got in during 1997 then why didn't they reverse any of her policies during the following 13 years..?

People mention the council homes weren't replaced and Coal mines being closed but why didn't the Labour government reserve these moves..? Too expensive maybe..? 'If' that is the case then it would be the very reason she did those policies in the first place..?

Over last 24 hours here has been some very good points made on both sides but one thing has never been answered so I was wondering if a Labour supporter could answer it for me:

There are many policies which the left disagreed with but as Labour got in during 1997 then why didn't they reverse any of her policies during the following 13 years..?

People mention the council homes weren't replaced and Coal mines being closed but why didn't the Labour government reserve these moves..? Too expensive maybe..? 'If' that is the case then it would be the very reason she did those policies in the first place..?

You're correct, they did retain the economic model, but They did a few things she would have never done, the main being redistrubuting tax revenue to the poorest along with massive public spending, that we're all paying back now . I'm not socialist, nor am a Thatcher fan, I agree with a lot of her policies but she did cast away many communities in the valleys without any provision for their future employment.

Over last 24 hours here has been some very good points made on both sides but one thing has never been answered so I was wondering if a Labour supporter could answer it for me:

There are many policies which the left disagreed with but as Labour got in during 1997 then why didn't they reverse any of her policies during the following 13 years..?

People mention the council homes weren't replaced and Coal mines being closed but why didn't the Labour government reserve these moves..? Too expensive maybe..? 'If' that is the case then it would be the very reason she did those policies in the first place..?

adam because tony blair was maggie with trousers. new labour was a watered down version of the tories but as you know in the valleys you could put a red rossette on a donkey and it would win its constituency so he was accepted..
as you say he had the opportunity to reverse the decisions made by maggie but chose not to because fundamentaly he believed in what she had done was right.
and dont get me started on kinnock the ginger tosser who couldent wait to leave his valleys heritage behind and and bury his snout in the euro gravy trough alongside his missus.
bet you see him at the games against the big 4 next season in the directors box lording it over everybody.

Because she was right Adam.

None of them dare revert to the policies of the 70's because they know that'd be wrong. Instead they constantly hung her out to try to suit their agenda. They used and twisted some of her policies against her and against the Tories many years later to better their chances in the polls and turn the nation against them.

Because she was right Adam.

None of them dare revert to the policies of the 70's because they know that'd be wrong. Instead they constantly hung her out to try to suit their agenda. They used and twisted some of her policies against her and against the Tories many years later to better their chances in the polls and turn the nation against them.

I'm not sure that the Labour top brass were Thatcher-rite converts, doubt if brown was, more a case of real politik, The country couldn't accept socialism so it was all done stealthily, until the true horror unravelled in 08.

Over last 24 hours here has been some very good points made on both sides but one thing has never been answered so I was wondering if a Labour supporter could answer it for me:

There are many policies which the left disagreed with but as Labour got in during 1997 then why didn't they reverse any of her policies during the following 13 years..?

People mention the council homes weren't replaced and Coal mines being closed but why didn't the Labour government reserve these moves..? Too expensive maybe..? 'If' that is the case then it would be the very reason she did those policies in the first place..?

Can't answer this, I'm too pissed celebrating

Because she was right Adam.

None of them dare revert to the policies of the 70's because they know that'd be wrong. Instead they constantly hung her out to try to suit their agenda. They used and twisted some of her policies against her and against the Tories many years later to better their chances in the polls and turn the nation against them.

i also blame those flower power hiipy twats from the 60's for the decline of the nation.
make love not war or f*cking work for that matter.

Economically and in terms of gaining legitimacy globally, what she did was necessary. But for someone like me, I just can't get my head around the costs of this to the people. How can a leader of a country actively (not passively) allow people to live in squalor. No social mobility and no opportunity to get out of the rut that generation after generation find themselves in. For those who know their economics, the trickle down' effect didn't really work and the 'right to buy' scheme was still not helpful for the vast amounts of unemployed, unprivileged families. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer, but at least our state power increased and we were a force to be reckoned with. There certainly isn't the community spirit which existed in War time Britain because your neighbour is now your competitive rival.
There needed to be a compromise - Learn to help yourselves but ALSO learn to help others. These right vs left arguments are what make politics so difficult

Over last 24 hours here has been some very good points made on both sides but one thing has never been answered so I was wondering if a Labour supporter could answer it for me:

There are many policies which the left disagreed with but as Labour got in during 1997 then why didn't they reverse any of her policies during the following 13 years..?

People mention the council homes weren't replaced and Coal mines being closed but why didn't the Labour government reserve these moves..? Too expensive maybe..? 'If' that is the case then it would be the very reason she did those policies in the first place..?

Simple, even if they had wanted to, once a mine is shut down it is almost as expensive as starting from scratch to open it up again.

Similarly, when the council houses were sold off the stock was then so low that it would have taken huge investment to built it back up to the levels required.

There are things that she did that maybe Labour could/should have reversed. But those two examples aren't good ones to raise.

Over last 24 hours here has been some very good points made on both sides but one thing has never been answered so I was wondering if a Labour supporter could answer it for me:

There are many policies which the left disagreed with but as Labour got in during 1997 then why didn't they reverse any of her policies during the following 13 years..?

People mention the council homes weren't replaced and Coal mines being closed but why didn't the Labour government reserve these moves..? Too expensive maybe..? 'If' that is the case then it would be the very reason she did those policies in the first place..?

Coal mine closure was obviously innevitable, its a finite resource, however she treated miners are other manual workers like shit on her shoe.

Council houses, not sure what tree you are barking up really. She didn't sell them off because the system was too expensive but for ideological reason. Once they had been sold off, obviously it is going to cost an absolute crap load to 'replace' them (either buying them back for more than they were sold or building new ones). Labour were obviously not going to do this, it wasn't simply a decision they could reverse (but they wouldn't have done it in the first place), i thought that would be pretty obvious to someone who natters on about politics and current affairs day and night on here...

It was a shortsighted decision that has benefitted quite a few individuals but is now costing the country.

Economically and in terms of gaining legitimacy globally, what she did was necessary. But for someone like me, I just can't get my head around the costs of this to the people. How can a leader of a country actively (not passively) allow people to live in squalor. No social mobility and no opportunity to get out of the rut that generation after generation find themselves in. For those who know their economics, the trickle down' effect didn't really work and the 'right to buy' scheme was still not helpful for the vast amounts of unemployed, unprivileged families. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer, but at least our state power increased and we were a force to be reckoned with. There certainly isn't the community spirit which existed in War time Britain because your neighbour is now your competitive rival.
There needed to be a compromise - Learn to help yourselves but ALSO learn to help others. These right vs left arguments are what make politics so difficult

I'd disagree about social mobility, it fell under the last labour government. It could be argued that this was partly down to the exspansion of middle classd women into full time work, which edged out aspiring working class men, but labour has to take responsibility for decimating the traditional family roles if this is the case.

Over last 24 hours here has been some very good points made on both sides but one thing has never been answered so I was wondering if a Labour supporter could answer it for me:

There are many policies which the left disagreed with but as Labour got in during 1997 then why didn't they reverse any of her policies during the following 13 years..?

People mention the council homes weren't replaced and Coal mines being closed but why didn't the Labour government reserve these moves..? Too expensive maybe..? 'If' that is the case then it would be the very reason she did those policies in the first place..?

Simple, even if they had wanted to, once a mine is shut down it is almost as expensive as starting from scratch to open it up again.

Similarly, when the council houses were sold off the stock was then so low that it would have taken huge investment to built it back up to the levels required.

There are things that she did that maybe Labour could/should have reversed. But those two examples aren't good ones to raise.

Maybe we could of used the billions of pounds we spent on the war in Iraq to build new council houses?

Over last 24 hours here has been some very good points made on both sides but one thing has never been answered so I was wondering if a Labour supporter could answer it for me:

There are many policies which the left disagreed with but as Labour got in during 1997 then why didn't they reverse any of her policies during the following 13 years..?

People mention the council homes weren't replaced and Coal mines being closed but why didn't the Labour government reserve these moves..? Too expensive maybe..? 'If' that is the case then it would be the very reason she did those policies in the first place..?

Simple, even if they had wanted to, once a mine is shut down it is almost as expensive as starting from scratch to open it up again.

Similarly, when the council houses were sold off the stock was then so low that it would have taken huge investment to built it back up to the levels required.

There are things that she did that maybe Labour could/should have reversed. But those two examples aren't good ones to raise.

Or just manage immigration a bit better.

Maybe we could of used the billions of pounds we spent on the war in Iraq to build new council houses?

Economically and in terms of gaining legitimacy globally, what she did was necessary. But for someone like me, I just can't get my head around the costs of this to the people. How can a leader of a country actively (not passively) allow people to live in squalor. No social mobility and no opportunity to get out of the rut that generation after generation find themselves in. For those who know their economics, the trickle down' effect didn't really work and the 'right to buy' scheme was still not helpful for the vast amounts of unemployed, unprivileged families. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer, but at least our state power increased and we were a force to be reckoned with. There certainly isn't the community spirit which existed in War time Britain because your neighbour is now your competitive rival.
There needed to be a compromise - Learn to help yourselves but ALSO learn to help others. These right vs left arguments are what make politics so difficult

I'd disagree about social mobility, it fell under the last labour government. It could be argued that this was partly down to the exspansion of middle classd women into full time work, which edged out aspiring working class men, but labour has to take responsibility for decimating the traditional family roles if this is the case.

I disagree there as the economy during the change over in 1997 was as heathly as it has ever been!!! So to say that the money wasn't there doesn't work with me

Over last 24 hours here has been some very good points made on both sides but one thing has never been answered so I was wondering if a Labour supporter could answer it for me:

There are many policies which the left disagreed with but as Labour got in during 1997 then why didn't they reverse any of her policies during the following 13 years..?

People mention the council homes weren't replaced and Coal mines being closed but why didn't the Labour government reserve these moves..? Too expensive maybe..? 'If' that is the case then it would be the very reason she did those policies in the first place..?

Simple, even if they had wanted to, once a mine is shut down it is almost as expensive as starting from scratch to open it up again.

Similarly, when the council houses were sold off the stock was then so low that it would have taken huge investment to built it back up to the levels required.

There are things that she did that maybe Labour could/should have reversed. But those two examples aren't good ones to raise.

Maybe we could of used the billions of pounds we spent on the war in Iraq to build new council houses?

You won't get an argument from me on that one !!

But perhaps Maggie could have more wisely spent the money she used to re-capture and, subsequently, defend the Falklands for 20 odd years, in a similar fashion All for the sake of 1000-2000 inhabitants who chose to leave Britain

I'm not sure making Blair out to be a war mongerer in comparison to Thatcher is the most successful line of defence

Over last 24 hours here has been some very good points made on both sides but one thing has never been answered so I was wondering if a Labour supporter could answer it for me:

There are many policies which the left disagreed with but as Labour got in during 1997 then why didn't they reverse any of her policies during the following 13 years..?

People mention the council homes weren't replaced and Coal mines being closed but why didn't the Labour government reserve these moves..? Too expensive maybe..? 'If' that is the case then it would be the very reason she did those policies in the first place..?

Simple, even if they had wanted to, once a mine is shut down it is almost as expensive as starting from scratch to open it up again.

Similarly, when the council houses were sold off the stock was then so low that it would have taken huge investment to built it back up to the levels required.

There are things that she did that maybe Labour could/should have reversed. But those two examples aren't good ones to raise.

Maybe we could of used the billions of pounds we spent on the war in Iraq to build new council houses?

You won't get an argument from me on that one !!

But perhaps Maggie could have more wisely spent the money she used to re-capture and, subsequently, defend the Falklands for 20 odd years, in a similar fashion All for the sake of 1000-2000 inhabitants who chose to leave Britain

I'm not sure making Blair out to be a war mongerer in comparison to Thatcher is the most successful line of defence

A million dead Iraqis.

Blair has a lot more blood on his hands than Thatcher and wars Blair involved us in cost a lot more than the Falklands and also cost many more lives.

And those in the poorer areas in the North weren't partly responsible for their own demise? If they had put as much energy into finding work and taking advantage of the opportunities that arose under Thatcher's rule as they did in revolting and striking maybe they'd have prospered like many others who did. Easy to point the blame solely at someone else. As one door closes another often opens and that is true under Thatchers rule.

Economically and in terms of gaining legitimacy globally, what she did was necessary. But for someone like me, I just can't get my head around the costs of this to the people. How can a leader of a country actively (not passively) allow people to live in squalor. No social mobility and no opportunity to get out of the rut that generation after generation find themselves in. For those who know their economics, the trickle down' effect didn't really work and the 'right to buy' scheme was still not helpful for the vast amounts of unemployed, unprivileged families. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer, but at least our state power increased and we were a force to be reckoned with. There certainly isn't the community spirit which existed in War time Britain because your neighbour is now your competitive rival.
There needed to be a compromise - Learn to help yourselves but ALSO learn to help others. These right vs left arguments are what make politics so difficult

I'd disagree about social mobility, it fell under the last labour government. It could be argued that this was partly down to the exspansion of middle classd women into full time work, which edged out aspiring working class men, but labour has to take responsibility for decimating the traditional family roles if this is the case.

I disagree there as the economy during the change over in 1997 was as heathly as it has ever been!!! So to say that the money wasn't there doesn't work with me

I don't know what you mean, bit tired today. In 97 the books were sound but weren't booming as an economy, that came later along with the bust.

In my opinion it wasn't the policies of Thatcher that people disliked as such it was more the person herself.

Anyone who lived through the 70's would remember Ted Heath losing a General Election when he asked "Who governs the country". Labour under Harold Wilson won that election which basically said the "Unions" ruled the country. Thatcher NEVER forgot this and by 1985 she got her payback when she destroyed this countries mining industry, and in many cases the communities surrounding them. In my opinion that's what she is remembered for mostly. Sorting out trade union extremists was badly needed and she had the balls to do it, but she thought little about the consequences for local communities and that was her biggest failing.

Having said that her policies of controlling money supply, low taxation, strict control of public spending,deregulation all of these were required for an evolving society in a world where electronic advances were making the world smaller. I believe she fell upon privitisation by accident as selling the state owned industries allowed her to reduce public borrowing and cut taxes. But where was the forward planning for when there was nothing else to sell.?

In a changing world where peoples aspirations where so very different from the 1970 New Labour, in 1997, had no choice but to accept as a given the new values created by Thathcerism and why not.

Just a pity they didn't follow the core mantra of keeping a control on public spending as in that respect she was absolutely right.

I cannot see how New Labour could reverse some of Thatchers policies because Labour basically stole the central ground from under the Tories noses. How they did it I don't know but the Tories never challenged them back hence why we had 3 Labour general election victories.

The thing I noticed about Labours terms of office was how they took on Thatchers vision and introduced their own rules to the decrement of everyone. Take for instance being self employed. Thatcher encouraged this by offering tax incentives to those that wanted to go alone. These incentives were such that it damped the missing out of the benefits of working for a company like sick pay, holiday pay and one or two other benefits. Then along came Blair and his cronies who then looked at the self employed and started taxing them as if they worked for a company. So the self employed had the tax incentives taken away but still had to live without the benefits they sacrificed in the beginning. Then Blair looked at the company man and started taking away their benefits such as job security in the form of a company can get rid of you within 2 years of taking you on. To me it felt like the two main parties have been planning this all along.

Over last 24 hours here has been some very good points made on both sides but one thing has never been answered so I was wondering if a Labour supporter could answer it for me:

There are many policies which the left disagreed with but as Labour got in during 1997 then why didn't they reverse any of her policies during the following 13 years..?

People mention the council homes weren't replaced and Coal mines being closed but why didn't the Labour government reserve these moves..? Too expensive maybe..? 'If' that is the case then it would be the very reason she did those policies in the first place..?

Simple, even if they had wanted to, once a mine is shut down it is almost as expensive as starting from scratch to open it up again.

Similarly, when the council houses were sold off the stock was then so low that it would have taken huge investment to built it back up to the levels required.

There are things that she did that maybe Labour could/should have reversed. But those two examples aren't good ones to raise.

Maybe we could of used the billions of pounds we spent on the war in Iraq to build new council houses?

You won't get an argument from me on that one !!

But perhaps Maggie could have more wisely spent the money she used to re-capture and, subsequently, defend the Falklands for 20 odd years, in a similar fashion All for the sake of 1000-2000 inhabitants who chose to leave Britain

I'm not sure making Blair out to be a war mongerer in comparison to Thatcher is the most successful line of defence

the argies had actually invaded a british soverign territory and run their flag up wheras blair went to war knowing full well that there were no weapons of mass destruction.
how anyone can defend the pictures we saw of the indiscriminate bombing of iraq civilians those first few nights of the war is beyond me.
blair has far more blood on his hands than thatcher and hopefully one day he will be brought to justice in the haig

Over last 24 hours here has been some very good points made on both sides but one thing has never been answered so I was wondering if a Labour supporter could answer it for me:

There are many policies which the left disagreed with but as Labour got in during 1997 then why didn't they reverse any of her policies during the following 13 years..?

People mention the council homes weren't replaced and Coal mines being closed but why didn't the Labour government reserve these moves..? Too expensive maybe..? 'If' that is the case then it would be the very reason she did those policies in the first place..?

Simple, even if they had wanted to, once a mine is shut down it is almost as expensive as starting from scratch to open it up again.

Similarly, when the council houses were sold off the stock was then so low that it would have taken huge investment to built it back up to the levels required.

There are things that she did that maybe Labour could/should have reversed. But those two examples aren't good ones to raise.

Maybe we could of used the billions of pounds we spent on the war in Iraq to build new council houses?

You won't get an argument from me on that one !!

But perhaps Maggie could have more wisely spent the money she used to re-capture and, subsequently, defend the Falklands for 20 odd years, in a similar fashion All for the sake of 1000-2000 inhabitants who chose to leave Britain

I'm not sure making Blair out to be a war mongerer in comparison to Thatcher is the most successful line of defence

A million dead Iraqis.

Blair has a lot more blood on his hands than Thatcher and wars Blair involved us in cost a lot more than the Falklands and also cost many more lives.

Defending a territory thousands of miles away for 30 odd years is very costly. Probably not on the scale of Iraq but not to be sniffed at, particularly as we continue to spend millions very year on it with no real prospect of being able to end that cost.

Just to even out the argument on Blair (of whom I am no fan by the way !!). He did have a major part to play in bringing peace to Northern Ireland which is something that Thatcher was never going to do as she was hell bent on destroying the IRA because of personal losses she had suffered.

Understandable ? Maybe; but real leaders don't let personal grudges get in the way of doing the right thing.

Dont confuse New labour with the labour party please.

Blair and his cronies were not labour.

I heard a debate last year about Thatcher and the falklands, There is some dispute about whether the war could've been averted at the last minute, the peru government puttdown a last minute peace deal which Thatcher claims didn't reach her in time. This is contested by those who believe Thatcher was intent on flexing british muscle with Russia and an impending general election in mind. 'If' this is true that's not what british lads joined the army for & totally unforgivable.

Dont confuse New labour with the labour party please.

Blair and his cronies were not labour.

Spot on. Blair was a Thatcherite.

Over last 24 hours here has been some very good points made on both sides but one thing has never been answered so I was wondering if a Labour supporter could answer it for me:

There are many policies which the left disagreed with but as Labour got in during 1997 then why didn't they reverse any of her policies during the following 13 years..?

People mention the council homes weren't replaced and Coal mines being closed but why didn't the Labour government reserve these moves..? Too expensive maybe..? 'If' that is the case then it would be the very reason she did those policies in the first place..?

Simple, even if they had wanted to, once a mine is shut down it is almost as expensive as starting from scratch to open it up again.

Similarly, when the council houses were sold off the stock was then so low that it would have taken huge investment to built it back up to the levels required.

There are things that she did that maybe Labour could/should have reversed. But those two examples aren't good ones to raise.

Maybe we could of used the billions of pounds we spent on the war in Iraq to build new council houses?

You won't get an argument from me on that one !!

But perhaps Maggie could have more wisely spent the money she used to re-capture and, subsequently, defend the Falklands for 20 odd years, in a similar fashion All for the sake of 1000-2000 inhabitants who chose to leave Britain

I'm not sure making Blair out to be a war mongerer in comparison to Thatcher is the most successful line of defence

A million dead Iraqis.

Blair has a lot more blood on his hands than Thatcher and wars Blair involved us in cost a lot more than the Falklands and also cost many more lives.

What has that got to do with this thread? I like eating dog shit because its not quite as bad for me as eating uranium.

Over last 24 hours here has been some very good points made on both sides but one thing has never been answered so I was wondering if a Labour supporter could answer it for me:

There are many policies which the left disagreed with but as Labour got in during 1997 then why didn't they reverse any of her policies during the following 13 years..?

People mention the council homes weren't replaced and Coal mines being closed but why didn't the Labour government reserve these moves..? Too expensive maybe..? 'If' that is the case then it would be the very reason she did those policies in the first place..?

Simple, even if they had wanted to, once a mine is shut down it is almost as expensive as starting from scratch to open it up again.

Similarly, when the council houses were sold off the stock was then so low that it would have taken huge investment to built it back up to the levels required.

There are things that she did that maybe Labour could/should have reversed. But those two examples aren't good ones to raise.

Maybe we could of used the billions of pounds we spent on the war in Iraq to build new council houses?

You won't get an argument from me on that one !!

But perhaps Maggie could have more wisely spent the money she used to re-capture and, subsequently, defend the Falklands for 20 odd years, in a similar fashion All for the sake of 1000-2000 inhabitants who chose to leave Britain

I'm not sure making Blair out to be a war mongerer in comparison to Thatcher is the most successful line of defence

A million dead Iraqis.

Blair has a lot more blood on his hands than Thatcher and wars Blair involved us in cost a lot more than the Falklands and also cost many more lives.

What has that got to do with this thread? I like eating dog shit because its not quite as bad for me as eating uranium.

That Labour could of intaken a huge house building project.

But we went to war in Iraq and wasted billions and cost a million people their lives.

Over last 24 hours here has been some very good points made on both sides but one thing has never been answered so I was wondering if a Labour supporter could answer it for me:

There are many policies which the left disagreed with but as Labour got in during 1997 then why didn't they reverse any of her policies during the following 13 years..?

People mention the council homes weren't replaced and Coal mines being closed but why didn't the Labour government reserve these moves..? Too expensive maybe..? 'If' that is the case then it would be the very reason she did those policies in the first place..?

TBH that is a daft question because by the time Labour were elected it was far too late to do anything about those policies. This kind of question can be used retrospectively to attack any policy, for example why didn't the Tory Government of 1951 (or any subsequent Conservative Government) reverse the creation of the NHS? After all they (including Winston Churchill) were vehemently against its set up.

Over last 24 hours here has been some very good points made on both sides but one thing has never been answered so I was wondering if a Labour supporter could answer it for me:

There are many policies which the left disagreed with but as Labour got in during 1997 then why didn't they reverse any of her policies during the following 13 years..?

People mention the council homes weren't replaced and Coal mines being closed but why didn't the Labour government reserve these moves..? Too expensive maybe..? 'If' that is the case then it would be the very reason she did those policies in the first place..?

TBH that is a daft question because by the time Labour were elected it was far too late to do anything about those policies. This kind of question can be used retrospectively to attack any policy, for example why didn't the Tory Government of 1951 (or any subsequent Conservative Government) reverse the creation of the NHS? After all they (including Winston Churchill) were vehemently against its set up.

Is that true? Chuurchill vehemently opposed the NHS?

Over last 24 hours here has been some very good points made on both sides but one thing has never been answered so I was wondering if a Labour supporter could answer it for me:

There are many policies which the left disagreed with but as Labour got in during 1997 then why didn't they reverse any of her policies during the following 13 years..?

People mention the council homes weren't replaced and Coal mines being closed but why didn't the Labour government reserve these moves..? Too expensive maybe..? 'If' that is the case then it would be the very reason she did those policies in the first place..?

TBH that is a daft question because by the time Labour were elected it was far too late to do anything about those policies. This kind of question can be used retrospectively to attack any policy, for example why didn't the Tory Government of 1951 (or any subsequent Conservative Government) reverse the creation of the NHS? After all they (including Winston Churchill) were vehemently against its set up.

Is that true? Chuurchill vehemently opposed the NHS?

Yes, Winston wanted to keep the things there were the same after the war and lost the election because of this.