Gripper Stebson Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Mrs Thatcher shut down industry, impoverished whole communities, caused the underclass, sold off the family silver, squandered the income from North sea oil, and deregulated the banks which led to the chaos we have today. I couldn't agree more. That woman is soley responsible for destroying local communities in the area I live and it's not Yorkshire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 It's thanks to her and her gov that this country no longer has enough council homes, No it isn't. She's been out of power for a quarter of a century. We had 13 years of Labour government in that time and they hardly built any council homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningman1 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 I couldn't agree more. That woman is soley responsible for destroying local communities in the area I live and it's not Yorkshire. What area do you live in and what did Thatcher do to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 She isn't "solely responsible" for anything. The industries she "closed down" weren't producing products that people wanted to buy. Her government simply stopped subsidising them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 She caused the underclass? Do you not think the underclass existed before Thatcher? What an incredibly naive claim to make. Yes, I think she did. Before Thatcher we lived in a time of almost full employment. There were some unemployed, but it was considered quite shameful and never acceptable to stay on benefits for any length of time, nor any excuse for doing so, as there were always jobs available. It was possible (I know because I did it,) to leave a job on the Friday, knock on a few doors, make a few phonecalls, and have a job to go to on the Monday. There were jobs at all levels and it was a lot simpler then. Having a sudden explosion of several thousands of people all dumped on the jobs market at the same time, in the same place, and only qualified for one type of job put a stop to that. Unemployment rocketed to 4 million (unofficial figures) and you couldn't get a job for love or money. Whole communities were decimated. People began to be unemployed long term. Confidence plumeted and bitterness set in. If you weren't in a position to up sticks and move, or too old to retrain, you had virtually no chance of getting another job. Eventually people just gave up and settled for a life on benefits. This inevitably became a way of life in some communities (Scunthorpe may well go the same way,) and the underclass had arrived. Not naive at all. I watched it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningman1 Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Yes, I think she did. Before Thatcher we lived in a time of almost full employment. There were some unemployed, but it was considered quite shameful and never acceptable to stay on benefits for any length of time, nor any excuse for doing so, as there were always jobs available. It was possible (I know because I did it,) to leave a job on the Friday, knock on a few doors, make a few phonecalls, and have a job to go to on the Monday. There were jobs at all levels and it was a lot simpler then. Having a sudden explosion of several thousands of people all dumped on the jobs market at the same time, in the same place, and only qualified for one type of job put a stop to that. Unemployment rocketed to 4 million (unofficial figures) and you couldn't get a job for love or money. Whole communities were decimated. People began to be unemployed long term. Confidence plumeted and bitterness set in. If you weren't in a position to up sticks and move, or too old to retrain, you had virtually no chance of getting another job. Eventually people just gave up and settled for a life on benefits. This inevitably became a way of life in some communities (Scunthorpe may well go the same way,) and the underclass had arrived. Not naive at all. I watched it happen. So the underclass didn't exist before 1979? After all it couldn't have done if Thatcher created it right? Bloody Dickens and his lies about society pre thatcher, I have a mind to write a strongly worded letter of complaint. The industries that were impacted most during her rule were already declining at an alarming rate. The two terms of Labour Government under Wilson resulted in just over half of the mining job losses than in Thatchers three terms, so the jobs lost per year on average were only a bit higher under Thatcher. Can you not remember this? Moreover, the redundancy packages offered under Thatcher were more generous than those offered under Wilson. There was no saving the mining industry, it was too heavily subsidised by the state. It was costly, inefficient and dirty to mine coal here, plus the UK was moving away from its dependence on coal. No one can deny that the mines needed to be closed, though it should have been handled better. Any objective observer would admit that the militancy of the Unions forced the government's hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackydog Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 No one can deny that the mines needed to be closed, though it should have been handled better. . That is the crux. Although the unions had got out of control, the crushing of them was done with animosity and no though for the fallout to ordinary working people and their dependant communities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningman1 Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 No one can deny that the mines needed to be closed, though it should have been handled better. . That is the crux. Although the unions had got out of control, the crushing of them was done with animosity and no though for the fallout to ordinary working people and their dependant communities. It is highly debatable whether you can call the strike a strike. Ballots for strike action were held three times and each time the strikes were rejected. This was not a democratic movement, most of the miners wanted to work but we're forcibly stopped working by a minority. Some people were even murdered by the militants for trying to provide for their families. Imagine if a minority of people at your work wanted to strike and three times they tried to and three times they were outvoted. You turned up to work one morning and this same minority of people were outside your place of work, stopping you from going in and threatening you with violence should you do so How would you want the government to treat these militants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Which is a reason so many have taken their own lives rather than live on the streets How many is "so many". Links please, not hyperbole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickey finn Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 It's thanks to her and her gov that this country no longer has enough council homes, hense the bedroom tax we now have. Which is a reason so many have taken their own lives rather than live on the streets when they can't afford to pay it out of their £72 per week and get evicted. Just so some freeloader from the EU can have their homes. Nor do we have any mining, steel or ship-building jobs thanks to her. She was the start of the rot. Absolute tosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now