Margaret Thatcher Thread - Read the first post before posting

[MrSmith]

As a percentage of GDP MrSmith? And have you adjusted the more recent figures to account for inflation.

 

It’s still less revenue in the 80's than 20's with the most revenue in 2000 when both gas and oil production peaked even when you account for inflation.

 

We used the revenue in the 80’s to cut borrowing, you will notice when they both peaked in 2000 we didn’t have a budget deficit.

Edited April 13, 2013 by MrSmith

[I1L2T3]

It’s still less revenue in the 80's than 20's with the most revenue in 2000 when both gas and oil production peaked even when you account for inflation.

 

We used the revenue in the 80’s to cut borrowing, you will notice when they both peaked in 2000 we didn’t have a budget deficit.

 

In real terms revenue is much less now. It was 3% of GDP in the 80s. You're making the mistake of looking at absolute figures.

 

Thatcher used the money in the 80s to pay the increased dole bill.

 

While we're on the subject of Tories wasting money in the 80s, what did they do with the money from utility sales, from council house sales. Where did it all go?

[MrSmith]

In real terms revenue is much less now. It was 3% of GDP in the 80s. You're making the mistake of looking at absolute figures.

 

Thatcher used the money in the 80s to pay the increased dole bill.

 

While we're on the subject of Tories wasting money in the 80s, what did they do with the money from utility sales, from council house sales. Where did it all go?

 

Its irrelevant what percentage of GDP it represented, we produced more gas and oil in 2000 than at any other time, it was more expensive and generated more revenues for the government than any other time, this allowed the government of the time to stop borrowing money for a short while, so we had a budget surplus in 1999 to 2001

[PeteMorris]

Moderator message:

 

Yes I know it's slightly oddball to post a mod message like this .... But I'm not the 'norm'.......Has anyone who has contributed to this thread actually changed their view? Or been swayed one way or the other?....It appears to me, that either you're in the Thatcher camp...or wildly the other way, and it seems nothing and no argument one way or the other will change anyone's views!....I'm just interested to know.

[MrSmith]

Moderator message:

 

Yes I know it's slightly oddball to post a mod message like this .... But I'm not the 'norm'.......Has anyone who has contributed to this thread actually changed their view? Or been swayed one way or the other?....It appears to me, that either you're in the Thatcher camp...or wildly the other way, and it seems nothing and no argument one way or the other will change anyone's views!....I'm just interested to know.

 

We might not have changed our minds but like me i'm sure some member must now know more than they knew before we started posting.

[pottedplant]

We might not have changed our minds but like me i'm sure some member must now know more than they knew before we started posting.

 

I have changed my mind - having read the above I now know MrSmith can talk some sense

[I1L2T3]

Its irrelevant what percentage of GDP it represented, we produced more gas and oil in 2000 than at any other time, it was more expensive and generated more revenues for the government than any other time, this allowed the government of the time to stop borrowing money for a short while, so we had a budget surplus in 1999 to 2001

 

It is relevant what the % of GDP it was. It's the best way to consider the overall impact of the revenue in terms of the economy at the time.

 

The other important measure is how much was saved. None of it was saved.

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2013 at 18:38 ----------

 

Moderator message:

 

Yes I know it's slightly oddball to post a mod message like this .... But I'm not the 'norm'.......Has anyone who has contributed to this thread actually changed their view? Or been swayed one way or the other?....It appears to me, that either you're in the Thatcher camp...or wildly the other way, and it seems nothing and no argument one way or the other will change anyone's views!....I'm just interested to know.

 

It's an interesting thread. Like you hint she was divisive. She always will be so.

Edited April 13, 2013 by I1L2T3

[ronthenekred]

Moderator message:

 

Yes I know it's slightly oddball to post a mod message like this .... But I'm not the 'norm'.......Has anyone who has contributed to this thread actually changed their view? Or been swayed one way or the other?....It appears to me, that either you're in the Thatcher camp...or wildly the other way, and it seems nothing and no argument one way or the other will change anyone's views!....I'm just interested to know.

 

I'm "wildly" the other way...but not that way if you get my drift.

[cuttsie]

I have just seen on the TV news that police are scanning web sites for evidence of people organising street parties to celebrate Thatchers death.

Is this an admision of what has been evident since the Miners strike and The Hillsbro cover up that we are indeed a police state.

How can it be an offence to hold a Street party.

[Michael_W]

I have just seen on the TV news that police are scanning web sites for evidence of people organising street parties to celebrate Thatchers death.

Is this an admision of what has been evident since the Miners strike and The Hillsbro cover up that we are indeed a police state.

How can it be an offence to hold a Street party.

 

It's not an offence to hold a street party, however some of these organised parties are potential trouble spots ..... some Millwall fans threatened to turn up to one in London today to crack a few lefties, they turned on themselves inside Wembley instead !