Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?

[thebish]

I've no idea whether this was accurate or not, but I recall at the time of the strike it was claimed that the subsidies that were being given at that time to the nuclear industry, if given to the coal industry would enable coal to be issued free of charge to every household in Britiain and also give each household an amount of money (might have been £250).

Whatever the truth of that claim, nuclear has a defence as well as energy application and besides, there is a difference between structual subsidies and investment with the hope/expectation of future benefits/profits.

in what way do our nuclear power stations contribute to our defense capability? genuine question - this assertion surprises me...

Really ?

A by-product of nuclear generation is plutonium ... feedstock of a nuclear bomb.

Also enriched uranium goes toward the manufacture of the about and the depleated uramium is a mainstay of high-tech armaments.

This is why the West has been getting arsy about Iran's enrichment facility.

yes - I know that - but is that where we actually get our plutonium from for our nuclear arms? facilities for nuclear power would have to be seriously modified in order for them to make weapon material - and I don't think ours have been - have they? I didn't think they were the places we made our weapons grade plutonium...

I thought plutonium was the FUEL in nuclear power generation - not the byproduct.. the waste is surely not what we use for weapons. is that what you're saying?

depleted uranium is used in weaponry - but not the weapons commonly known as "nuclear" surely? or have i got that wrong?

[Worthy4England]

I understand all of that - what I'm asking about are the sorts of things you feel could/should have been done?

(Also, the reason I restricted the hypthetical question to 'eradicating state subsidy' is that it's a more focused thought experiment.)

Ok, we could've:

1) Offered replacement industries grants to re-locate into the areas that jobs were displaced from, prior to them being shunted - there were some grants available, but generally not in the right locations and firms weren't necessarily interested in going there, but money talks. ("Here's a wonderful opportunity to staff your new call centre with ex-miners")

2) Offered much more comprehensive training/re-training opportunities targeted at the different groups being displaced (rather than the general unemployment schemes that were available and telling them to "get on their bikes")

3) Slowed the rate of change buy opening the markets more incrementally, rather than force the issue, although this probably would have caused prolonged disputes.

4) Offered re-location assistance (someone with a nice little semi in Co Durham, probably couldn't have afforded a double garage in London, given the property boom, before it all turned into negative equity)

5) Staged the lay-offs (similar to #3) and also would have caused conflict with the Unions.

6) Made more use of early retirement provisions - allow people to draw their pensions earlier

7) Repackaged targeted redundancy and unemployment benefits so that they decreased over time (a bit like parachute payments in the Prem), help soften the blow

There's a few to be going on with, but the problem is some of them have associated expenditure and one of the other parts of the policy is to cut expenditure...

So nah, fcuk 'em, they probably don't vote for us anyhow.

[bobo the clown]

I've no idea whether this was accurate or not, but I recall at the time of the strike it was claimed that the subsidies that were being given at that time to the nuclear industry, if given to the coal industry would enable coal to be issued free of charge to every household in Britiain and also give each household an amount of money (might have been £250).

Whatever the truth of that claim, nuclear has a defence as well as energy application and besides, there is a difference between structual subsidies and investment with the hope/expectation of future benefits/profits.

in what way do our nuclear power stations contribute to our defense capability? genuine question - this assertion surprises me...

Really ?

A by-product of nuclear generation is plutonium ... feedstock of a nuclear bomb.

Also enriched uranium goes toward the manufacture of the about and the depleated uramium is a mainstay of high-tech armaments.

This is why the West has been getting arsy about Iran's enrichment facility.

yes - I know that - but is that where we actually get our plutonium from for our nuclear arms? facilities for nuclear power would have to be seriously modified in order for them to make weapon material - and I don't think ours have been - have they? I didn't think they were the places we made our weapons grade plutonium...

I thought plutonium was the FUEL in nuclear power generation - not the byproduct.. the waste is surely not what we use for weapons. is that what you're saying?

depleted uranium is used in weaponry - but not the weapons commonly known as "nuclear" surely? or have i got that wrong?

One by-product from using Uranium in a reactor is Plutonium, so yes.

There are other features also which go toward that trade.

You don't get depleated uranium without enriching some of it .... so, albeit it is used as a non-nuclear product in armaments it is a by-product.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I lied. I admit it, I'm back.
Thatcher herself manufactured the Falklands war in order to be re-elected. Before the Falklands she was as popular as shit on toast.

Revisionist history of a grand scale. How much did she pay Galtieri to invade the Falklands and/or South Georgia so she could react?

[thebish]

One by-product from using Uranium in a reactor is Plutonium, so yes.

so - yes, what? you're saying definitely that we produce plutonium in our nuclear power stations that is then used in our nuclear weapons?

I'm not sure that's true... i don't think that UK nuclear power stations are designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium...

[bobo the clown]

One by-product from using Uranium in a reactor is Plutonium, so yes.

so - yes, what? you're saying definitely that we produce plutonium in our nuclear power stations that is then used in our nuclear weapons?

I'm not sure that's true... i don't think that UK nuclear power stations are designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium...

Which is why it was shipped out to Dounray !!

ffs ... believe what you want.

[thebish]

One by-product from using Uranium in a reactor is Plutonium, so yes.

so - yes, what? you're saying definitely that we produce plutonium in our nuclear power stations that is then used in our nuclear weapons?

I'm not sure that's true... i don't think that UK nuclear power stations are designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium...

Which is why it was shipped out to Dounray !!

ffs ... believe what you want.

keep your pants on!!

I thought most/all of our weapons-grade plutonium was mostly made at Sellafield/windscale in the specially-built (weapons-grade) production reactors - not as a by-product of our nuclear power reactors - and not at Dounreay...

[seanworth]

I lied. I admit it, I'm back.
Thatcher herself manufactured the Falklands war in order to be re-elected. Before the Falklands she was as popular as shit on toast.

Revisionist history of a grand scale. How much did she pay Galtieri to invade the Falklands and/or South Georgia so she could react?

I always took it that Argentina used the war as the diversionary tactic. In regards to Mrs. Thatcher it worked out very much to her advantage though. Was one of my first lessons in political life when that war kicked off. I thought, and I was still quite young in regards to life's experiences, and being somewhat of a pacifist, that the English, especially the youth would react very negatively in regards to the haste Mrs. Thatcher jumped into the fro, so was shocked to say the least when her popularity in the polls soared. At the time I felt I had no understanding of the English whatsoever, but as the years went on I'm not sure how the public in most countries would have reacted. I like to feel it would be somewhat different if it was Canada, but in all likelihood not to the extent that I would have initially thought.

[Worthy4England]

I lied. I admit it, I'm back.
Thatcher herself manufactured the Falklands war in order to be re-elected. Before the Falklands she was as popular as shit on toast.

Revisionist history of a grand scale. How much did she pay Galtieri to invade the Falklands and/or South Georgia so she could react?

What isn't in question is the spending review that recommended decomissioning Endeavour which was one of the main reasons John Nott tendered his resignation. I assume he wouldn't have done so if he didn't think it significant.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I lied. I admit it, I'm back.
Thatcher herself manufactured the Falklands war in order to be re-elected. Before the Falklands she was as popular as shit on toast.

Revisionist history of a grand scale. How much did she pay Galtieri to invade the Falklands and/or South Georgia so she could react?

What isn't in question is the spending review that recommended decomissioning Endeavour which was one of the main reasons John Nott tendered his resignation. I assume he wouldn't have done so if he didn't think it significant.

This segue is too much for my tired brain, Worthy, though I'm sure you are correct. Sean, the junta wished to detract the Argentinians from domestic ills and debated two possible courses. Either seize the Falklands (Malvinas) or attack Chile over the Beagle channel dispute. They felt the former would resonate better and encounter less resistance than the latter. It was for this reason that Chile gave quiet support to the British (once the US had apprised Pinochet of the matter). Thus it was that Thatcher supported Pinochet when he was no longer president.

[a1]

Have they nailed the feckin lid down yet?

Thanks to Sir Margaret, we won't have to wait for a Joiner to do a job an unskilled bloke can do

i've only just got this ^

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I lied. I admit it, I'm back.
Thatcher herself manufactured the Falklands war in order to be re-elected. Before the Falklands she was as popular as shit on toast.

Revisionist history of a grand scale. How much did she pay Galtieri to invade the Falklands and/or South Georgia so she could react?

Thatcher's government knew what the Argentinians were up to and refused to sit around a table and discuss things diplomatically. They took the view that either Argentina were bluffing 9in private0 or that if they did invade then exactly what occurred would occur and her and her cronies would look good. This is hardly revisionist, it was being argued thusly at the time. Even my Japanese friends who were so pro-Thatcher they had pictures of her on their walls knew about this aspect.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

PS
I'm sorry I called Bijou Bob a moron, he's obviously not.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Oh dear... looks like I wasn't the only one then.

http://www.bigtop40.com/
Live iTunes Top 10
1 Judy Garland (Et Al.) Ding-Dong! the Witch Is Dead.
2 Duke Dumont Need U (100%) [feat. A*M*E].
3 Nelly Hey Porsche.
4 Pitbull Feel This Moment (feat. Christina Aguilera)
5 P!nk Just Give Me a Reason
6 Justin Timberlake Mirrors
7 Bastille Pompeii
8 The Saturdays What About Us (feat. Sean Paul)
9 Bruno Mars When I Was Your Man
10 Taylor Swift 22

[BWFC_Insane]

Oh dear... looks like I wasn't the only one then.

http://www.bigtop40.com/
Live iTunes Top 10
1 Judy Garland (Et Al.) Ding-Dong! the Witch Is Dead.
2 Duke Dumont Need U (100%) [feat. A*M*E].
3 Nelly Hey Porsche.
4 Pitbull Feel This Moment (feat. Christina Aguilera)
5 P!nk Just Give Me a Reason
6 Justin Timberlake Mirrors
7 Bastille Pompeii
8 The Saturdays What About Us (feat. Sean Paul)
9 Bruno Mars When I Was Your Man
10 Taylor Swift 22

Apparently it's going to be top ten this weekend in the official chart. Having never charted before in it's 70+ years of existence.......

In this crazy capitalist markets driven world, every dog will eventually have it's day I guess!

[mrkint]

Big fan of this

http://newsthump.com/2013/04/10/fears-f ... -contract/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Enoch]

Big fan of this

Does Gary Stanton make a living from writing such stuff, or does he do it for his own amusement?

[thebish]

Big fan of this

http://newsthump.com/2013/04/10/fears-f ... -contract/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mr Kint!!!! I'd wager my collection of Bjork CDs that you could write summat funnier than that in your sleep whilst recovering from a massive fruit-cider hangover!!

[mrkint]

tbh i didn't read much to the bottom - a lot of these kind of spoof news stories fall apart after the original premise has been done. The headline tickled me though, I will say

I've always wondered how hard it could be to run a spoof news site. Seems like a bit of a laugh.

[thebish]

noted rabid leftie and thatcher-hater, Peter Oborne, thinks the in-all-but-name state funeral for Maggie is a mistake...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... stake.html