Liverpool FC Forum

http://lfcproudnews.wordpress.com/2013/ ... day-night/

Why do you people do this?

Because she hurt a lot of people

What she did in her past was harmful to a lot of people.

The Unions had the country by the balls - every winter striking to get a massive pay rise and Thatcher took them on and beat them. That didn't go down well with British Industries which would have died anyway due to rising costs here and cheaper alternatives from abroad. Thatcher did a lot of things people didn't agree with and she put a lot out of work so I can understand the hatred for her and people not willing to mourn her BUT celebrating the death of an 87 year old lady with dementia !! I'm sorry but that's wrong IMO - you don't have to mourn her and be thankful that she passed away but celebrating !Disgusting - yesterday a guy posted a picture of his 8 year old drinking a can of beer celebrating - that says it all.

celebrating anyones death is just f##king ghoulish.

some rubbish written in here though, unions striking every winter? give me a break
and reg obviously isnt from the north.

Benny The Noon » Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:28 pm wrote:Because she hurt a lot of people

What she did in her past was harmful to a lot of people.

I can understand the hatred for her and people not willing to mourn her BUT celebrating the death of an 87 year old lady with dementia !! I'm sorry but that's wrong IMO -

That's what I meant with my question. It's stupid and silly. It's one thing saying "thank God the old bat is finally dead" but it's totally different when you're celebrating it on the streets.

The North was crippled by Thatcher and the only reason she was re-elected is people where
crushed by her politics and gave up.

You had to feel its effects to fully understand what it did to communities and it wasn't
just coal and steel, she ***** off the fishing industry as well with Dockers and port towns
left to rot whilst the financial sector in the capital and private investors flourished.

The so called 'chav' culture you see around today is a product of her policies, generations of working
class people forced into an underclass environment and being put to the sword again today by
Cameron and Osborne who are hell bent on finishing what she started.

All this was never just about saving the nations finances with Thatcher it was and still is about
social engineering where the weak and poor are left to rot and the strong and powerful survive.

A reported £8m of tax payers money will be spent on her funeral next Wednesday which is an
absolute disgrace, and I sincerely hope there is enough bitterness to ensure a revolt at that event
to show in no uncertain terms that her media led legacy is biased and what at least half this nation
truly thought of this dispicable woman.

The industry dying would have happened anyway - it would have happened slower possibly but it still would have gone. And the Unions needed stopping - they were holding the country to ransom and taxpayers were having to pay for their pay rises.

Both my uncles worked in the plane building in Belfast and managed to get work. My father was sent away for 2 years to the Falklands war so she effected my family.

The rewards were there to be gained for people willing to work hard for it - Universities became more accessible to "normal" people if you worked hard. Better education for more people happened.

Benny The Noon » Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:14 pm wrote:The industry dying would have happened anyway - it would have happened slower possibly but it still would have gone. And the Unions needed stopping - they were holding the country to ransom and taxpayers were having to pay for their pay rises.

Both my uncles worked in the plane building in Belfast and managed to get work. My father was sent away for 2 years to the Falklands war so she effected my family.

The rewards were there to be gained for people willing to work hard for it - Universities became more accessible to "normal" people if you worked hard. Better education for more people happened.

do you mean in the same way industry died in germany?
i remember that at the time she was closing the pits british miners were producing coal at a price of £18 a tonne, in west germany (as it was then) it cost over double that. did the germans close down an entire industry because it needed subsidising?
every industry needed subsidising after the tough economic times of the 70`s, thatcher was whinging about coal subsidies at a time when we were paying farmers to actually not produce!! no other industry got the subsidies that farming got but she wasnt interested in them because they voted tory.
the truth is it had f##k all to do with subsidies or unproductive pits it was all about the 1974 general election when the miners brought down the conservative government.
and do you know why the unions wanted a big pay rise in 79? because to control inflation the labour chancellor dennis healy got everyone together and asked them not to have a pay rise for 3 years, with inflation at near 25% people went through terrific hardship but they stuck it out. at the end of the 3 years healy was amazed with the results and tried to do the same again, the whole country went nuts and demanded a huge pay rise, it wasnt just the `bolshy` industries like car workers who went out, everyone did, nurses, firemen even the clerks in the house of commons. thats why the winter of discontent happened, the whole country went on strike, including tories who sneer at unions nowadays.

Benny The Noon » Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:14 pm wrote:The industry dying would have happened anyway - it would have happened slower possibly but it still would have gone. And the Unions needed stopping - they were holding the country to ransom and taxpayers were having to pay for their pay rises.

Both my uncles worked in the plane building in Belfast and managed to get work. My father was sent away for 2 years to the Falklands war so she effected my family.

The rewards were there to be gained for people willing to work hard for it - Universities became more accessible to "normal" people if you worked hard. Better education for more people happened.

I am surprised by this by the way you opened the thread but take your point, people had to move on, some did and where able
but some where not, not all industry was finished and they just needed help, like the bankers today.

parchpea » Tue Apr 09, 2013 6:50 pm wrote:The North was crippled by Thatcher and the only reason she was re-elected is people where
crushed by her politics and gave up.

You had to feel its effects to fully understand what it did to communities and it wasn't
just coal and steel, she ***** off the fishing industry as well with Dockers and port towns
left to rot whilst the financial sector in the capital and private investors flourished.

The so called 'chav' culture you see around today is a product of her policies, generations of working
class people forced into an underclass environment and being put to the sword again today by
Cameron and Osborne who are hell bent on finishing what she started.

All this was never just about saving the nations finances with Thatcher it was and still is about
social engineering where the weak and poor are left to rot and the strong and powerful survive.

A reported £8m of tax payers money will be spent on her funeral next Wednesday which is an
absolute disgrace, and I sincerely hope there is enough bitterness to ensure a revolt at that event
to show in no uncertain terms that her media led legacy is biased and what at least half this nation
truly thought of this dispicable woman.

Great read in yesterday's Times - Margaret Thatcher’s legacy defined new Labour

The Labour Party of Mr Blair and Gordon Brown took three other things from the Thatcher settlement. The first was the relish with which new Labour embraced a market economy. No Labour government had ever truly committed itself to a transformation of capitalism but, until the 1970s dealt the idea a fatal blow, all had submitted to the tempting notion that the market could be planned to a better outcome. The belief in the market economy then was reluctant and rather grudging. New Labour never reached the Thatcherite devotion to deregulated markets but there is no question that the Labour Party of the 1990s had an economic policy unrecognisable from 20 years before.

It had been an uncomfortable lesson in market economics but there is little doubt that the Blair Labour Party owes its economic education to the Thatcher years.

The second legacy was the refusal of new Labour to reverse Mrs Thatcher’s privatisation programme. Old Labour maintained that utilities needed to be kept within the public sector. The success of privatisation forced the Labour Party to rethink its dogma that the public interest and the public sector were identical. None of the privatisations of the Conservative years between 1979 and 1997 was to be reversed, with the partial exception of the railways.

The third similarity between Mrs Thatcher and Mr Blair is that they were both able to expand the reach of their parties. Neither came from the dominant social class within their party, an inestimable advantage in modern British politics and one attribute David Cameron will never have.

Yet those affected by Thatcher and her policies voted in Labour into power and kept them there. Just proves to me that ignorance in party policy pervades society, Labour was successful because anti-conservative sentiment was riding high. The fact that Labour never reversed the very things creating the anti-conservative sentiment speaks volumes. I have no doubt that many Labour voters do so because of the fall out with the conservatives under Thatcher - not because they disagree with their policies.

What is even harder to understand is Labour is supported en masse in these areas yet issues affecting us all today such as immigration policy, European membership/increased powers and welfare dependence - all exist today due to Labour policy.

Yes some industries needed help - the car industry possibly but thousands of jobs were created by companies from Japan creating plants in this country.

Opportunities were given for people to retrain but too many people just wanted to keep being paid by the state - it wasnt sustainable and had to come to end - the way she went about it was wrong - she went in hard and tough and acted too quickly.

For a modern picture of unions - look at teachers , fireman and civil servants etc - always looking to strike for more money whilst others struggle on.

Whilst she was tough she at least stuck to her beliefs unlike every pm since - the country is on its knees right now funding other countries , funding immigrants , funding lazy Chavs who live off benefits.

Thatcher wanted a country were you worked hard for your rewards - she wanted us to be Great , she stood up to Europe , she stood up against Russia and she also defended us against anyone.

Thatcher will always divide the country - I neither mourn her or  respect her but I will never celebrate a 87 year old lady dying - that IMO shows the current state of our country.

Benny The Noon » Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:54 pm wrote:Yes some industries needed help - the car industry possibly but thousands of jobs were created by companies from Japan creating plants in this country.

Opportunities were given for people to retrain but too many people just wanted to keep being paid by the state - it wasnt sustainable and had to come to end - the way she went about it was wrong - she went in hard and tough and acted too quickly.

For a modern picture of unions - look at teachers , fireman and civil servants etc - always looking to strike for more money whilst others struggle on.

Whilst she was tough she at least stuck to her beliefs unlike every pm since - the country is on its knees right now funding other countries , funding immigrants , funding lazy Chavs who live off benefits.

Thatcher wanted a country were you worked hard for your rewards - she wanted us to be Great , she stood up to Europe , she stood up against Russia and she also defended us against anyone.

Thatcher will always divide the country - I neither mourn her or  respect her but I will never celebrate a 87 year old lady dying - that IMO shows the current state of our country.

people with your attitude is the reason why wealth has hemorrhaged from the working class to the richest in society over the past 40 years.
your kind will only be happy when everyone has raced each other to the bottom, when everyone is in poverty.
i applaud anyone who can get more money out of their employers because those employers have made astronomical profits over the last 30 years, the problem is instead of all those profits going into improved wages for the people who actually earned all that money for the firm (i.e the workers) those profits are paid out in the form of dividends to shareholders.
the workers dont see their wages rise but the owners (the shareholders) see their profits rise, thats thatcherism.
so please dont insult us with all this if you work hard you get your rewards $h1te, half of those cvnts in the city of london wouldnt last half a day on the hod in the middle of winter or hauling scaffold tubes up a tower block, there are people in this country who collapse into their settee`s every night when they get home from work absolutely f##king shattered who are getting paid a pittance, all that insulting $h1te about working hard is just another glib thatcherite soundbyte.
thatcher wasnt soft, she knew her ideology would hit wages, so thats why she instigated a credit boom, in the 70`s if you wanted to get something on HP you needed a letter from god, rather than pay people a decent wage thatcher made up the difference by allowing them to borrow money.
that way the shareholders got their profits and people were in debt, and people in debt dont rock the boat at work for fear of losing their job.

My Kind ? I work in the Military pal - don't talk to me about profit and working hard for pittance.

The world is a rat race - it's nasty unfortunately

The difference in the 70's the union were trying to get more money from the government to pay for their above inflation pay rises and we're was that money going to come from ? Thin air - the unions were bleeding the country dry and when they didn't get their way they downed tools.

And just because someone has a city job doesn't mean it's of less importance than someone doing manual labour.

Benny The Noon » Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:33 pm wrote:My Kind ? I work in the Military pal - don't talk to me about profit and working hard for pittance.

The world is a rat race - it's nasty unfortunately

The difference in the 70's the union were trying to get more money from the government to pay for their above inflation pay rises and we're was that money going to come from ? Thin air - the unions were bleeding the country dry and when they didn't get their way they downed tools.

And just because someone has a city job doesn't mean it's of less importance than someone doing manual labour.

that explains it, a lot of army types are up thatchers and the tories @rse.
it had nothing to do with the unions bleeding the government dry, every country on the planet was in the exact same boat in the 1970`s but ours decided to commit industrial hari kari, we are paying the price for it now. germany is setting the agenda in europe because it`s an industrial powerhouse while our government scrambles around trying to protect the corrupt city of london because it knows without it we are truly f##ked. thats where margret thatcher led us.
and by the way if it wasnt for `socialism` thatchers ideology would have brought western civilisation to it`s knee`s, the bankers caused more ruin than the unions ever did, funny enough those bankers werent too keen on thatchers idea`s when they came cap in hand to the british people to bail them out. they were pretty keen on socialism then.

I'm not in the Army and I have never voted Tory in my life.

But lets not forget the current state of the country because of Labour selling the country down the river.

No doubt the Labour that you voted in