Not as senile as she looks

[NormanH]

Years after destroying British industry Thatcher is still capable off leeching off the backs of those still struggling to recover from her policies

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/28/margaret-thatcher-expenses-claim

[Clarkkent]

I note this comes from the Guardian.

Will the Daily Mail maintain a respectful silence?

[Gardener]

Bloody Hell :(

[woolybanana]

Presumably all these claims have been verified and approved? I wonder what the breakdown is? Presumably most of the money is spent on offices and staff; I can't think that a little outfit from M and S or Primark would be very pricey.

I bet the numbers do not include police protection, either.

Norman, you could at least be even-handed and imply that former PMs of both parties have done rather well out of the system.[:P]

[Rabbie]

The figures for John Major were a bit less while T Blair had claimed about half. I haven't found any figures yet for G Brown

[JohnM]

[quote user="NormanH"]Years after destroying British industry Thatcher is still capable off leeching off the backs of those still struggling to recover from her policies

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/28/margaret-thatcher-expenses-claim

[/quote]

I don't think she can take all the "credit" for destroying British Industry. I seem to recall some pretty stupid unions leaders did their fair share, Red Robbo at Cowley springs to mind instantly.

[Joe]

Why is the former PM spoken about in such terms.To say she is "leeching" is not a nice turn of phrase.

So were here policies that bad.Where I lived in the Kent near the coalfield. I saw things that opened my eyes. Is it obvious that Margaret Thatcher is to blame for the state of the UK ?.

Did MRS THATCHER destroy British industry????

[Rabbie]

[quote user="Joe"]Why is the former PM spoken about in such terms.To say she is "leeching" is not a nice turn of phrase. So were here policies that bad.Where I lived in the Kent near the coalfield. I saw things that opened my eyes. Is it obvious that Margaret Thatcher is to blame for the state of the UK ?. Did MRS THATCHER destroy British industry????[/quote]In a word Yes

[idun]

I concur with Rabbie. I was just a simple observer, having left at the start of her reign. She encouraged a mentality that is abhorrent to me.

[Russethouse]

 Doesn't say much for the last Labour government ....especially Blair, who was surely the child of Thatcher ? 

[Quillan]

[quote user="Joe"]Why is the former PM spoken about in such terms.To say she is "leeching" is not a nice turn of phrase. So were here policies that bad.Where I lived in the Kent near the coalfield. I saw things that opened my eyes. Is it obvious that Margaret Thatcher is to blame for the state of the UK ?. Did MRS THATCHER destroy British industry????[/quote]

No is the simple answer.

What people are referring to, rather emotionally are the miners, ship builders, car manufacturers and steel workers, and much of it is interlinked. These were all business's that basically had gone bust but were subsidised by the state burning up huge amounts of tax payers money. It's a complicated subject and some of it is intertwined (coal, steel and ship building) coupled with other external forces. Yes some things, like steel production, were sold off to foreign companies, but then when you can see the writing on the wall and the opportunity arises to 'off load' the company to somebody who thinks they can make a go of it then why not. Having said that Thatcher was right as the companies who bought them couldn't make them work either and many of those companies sold went to the wall.

In other cases, like the miners (and the steel workers), why produce something that people no longer want. Coal in such quantities wasn't needed for steel manufacturing because we didn't need all the steel that was being made. The clean air act meant that people stopped burning coal. Coal was not needed to make gas because of natural gas production. Our railways didn't need coal because they had been electrified. Thatcher had a plan to close the pits slowly over ten years but the illegal strike (as recognised even by the NUM, it's says so on their own website) just hastened the closures and of course some pits, once the miners striked and were not maintained, could never open again anyway (flooding etc). Yes the violence was terrible and unwanted from both sides but lets not kid ourselves, it takes two to tango as they say and you can't place all the blame at any one person's door. As for Scargill, he was a political animal intent of bringing the Tories, who he hated with a passion, down by any means. The people who suffered, as always were the workers, and not the government and not the NUM leaders.

[Clarkkent]

[quote user="Joe"]Why is the former PM spoken about in such terms.To say she is "leeching" is not a nice turn of phrase. So were here policies that bad.Where I lived in the Kent near the coalfield. I saw things that opened my eyes. Is it obvious that Margaret Thatcher is to blame for the state of the UK ?. Did MRS THATCHER destroy British industry????[/quote]

No, she didn't. But she changed its nature.

Manufacturing is still a significant section of the UK economy. What has gone is the old, labour intensive, metal bashing, hand-crafting industries - but they are going from all western rich countries. They have gone to places like China and SE Asia where labour is cheap. The sort of industry that remains is either very high tech or specialised or both. Without British industrial input, Airbus would just be a .. bus. The wings - very complex structures - are made in the UK, as are Rolls-Royce powerplants. In spite of perceptions to the contrary, motor car manufacture is healthy, with Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Tata and BMW all operating successfully. Even Longbridge is producing cars again! There are significant food manufacturing companies, petrochemical companies and pharmaceutical companies.

Mrs Thatcher reformed industrial relations - to the benefit of everyone (union members included). What she did get wrong, however, was her espousal of Reagonomics and her belief in the powers of competition.

She had a choice when North Sea Oil revenues began to build up. The money could have been used to develop, re-inforce and expand the national infrastructure. She chose instead to give the money away as tax breaks to the wealthy in the expectation that increased wealth would "trickle down" and benefit the population as a whole. This did not happen - increased personal wealth was squirrelled away in places like the Cayman Islands!

And competition? This produced short term benefits. Her abolition of the tied estate in the brewing industry did result in more brands of beer being available in individual pubs, but it has also resulted in a massive shrinking in the total number of pubs. Hardly increasing competition. (Her tied estate logic should have led to BHS goods being available in Marks & Spencer!) The ease and freedom by which foreign predators can buy into British industry has also meant that strategic decisions are no longer taken in this country. Is Cadburys any stronger or more secure for having been devoured by Kraft?

 

Edit

The Beer Orders was not the only factor in the decline of the pub - but it was significant!

[Gardener]

Who has been making these claims on her behalf? She barely looks capable of holding a pen these days. From the Independent in June this year

"Baroness Thatcher had to stop making public appearances years ago because of ill health and is seldom at home for guests. A reception hosted by David Cameron in Downing Street to celebrate her 85th birthday had to go ahead without her.

An aide said: "Nowadays, the Lady rarely meets people at all. If a meeting went ahead it would be very much low-key, and would very much depend on how things were on the day. We don't make firm appointments for this sort of meeting."

Some UK papers kick up a stink every day about unemployed / disabled people in the UK receiving "handouts" and yet this woman has received almost 2 grand a week for 5 years. What she did or didn't do during her time in power is not so much of an issue for me now, but the fact that she can continue to claim a huge amount of money for doing what exactly? does rile me.

[Russethouse]

Lets face it, I doubt if she claims it personally and as Dennis Thatcher was independly wealthy she has no need to stripe the tax payer. These claims are supposed to be verified, perhaps someone needs to look more carefully at them.

[Quillan]

Yes RH and what about Tony Blair, why is he getting any money and expenses. In fact why are any of the ex PM's getting any expenses? He is a special peace envoy to the Middle East, a position he uses for his own means to make money. Nobody knows how much he has made from his deals as his companies are weaved like a web. Surely a man of his independent means does not require the state to fund him.

Whats really interesting by the way is the article is actually a lie. It uses Hansard as a reference but I rather think they have got singular and plural mixed up. Using the same data they quote as the source (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100406/text/100406w0007.htm ) and my trusty calculator I make it £439,603 over the "last five years" and that's assuming she has claimed the full entitlement. Seems the trusty Guardian. like the Daily Mail (and most of the other newspapers), won't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Also technically it's not really over the last five years as the answer to the question was given on the 6th April 2010 nearly 19 months ago. Perhaps they (Guardian) were just looking to fill a bit of space.

[Rabbie]

According to the BBC report on this, it was introduced by John Major soon after he became PM.