de trahir le peuple en amenant le pays au bord de la ruine
de ne pas avoir présenté de budget équilibré depuis près de quarante ans
de faire preuve d’une arrogance stupéfiante en prétendant que la France est trop importante pour respecter les lois économiques qui s’appliquent à tous les autres
de créer un état dont le coût qui s’approche de 60% du PIB n’est pas supportable
de créer un régime d’impôts qui est parmi les plus élevés et les plus complexes du monde
de tolérer un taux de chômage permanent et honteux dans un régime oû l’âge moyen d’accès au premier CDI se situe au-dessus de 30 ans.
de croire que l’Etat peut créer des emplois, alors qu’il ne peut que créer un environnement oû les emplois peuvent fleurir – ce qu’il ne fait pas, bien évidemment
de créer par contre un régime d’emploi rigide qui est néfaste pour l’emploi – alors qu’on nous fait croire qu’il est bénéfique
d’imposer des charges tellement lourdes sur l’emploi qu’un entrepreneur ferait tout pour ne pas embaucher
de promettre d’année en année – d’un changement de gouvernement après l’autre – de remettre les choses en ordre sans jamais faire le nécessaire (parce que c’est trop difficile – mais on vous élit pout cela!)
de permettre l’accumulation d’une énorme quantité “d’acquis” pour des groupes favorisés: en fait un syst me par lequel on espère acheter des votes avec l’argent des électeurs
de ne pas avoir le courage de prendre des mesures difficiles, par exemple de réduire la taille de l’Etat, de réduire les impôts, d’en finir avec les acquis pour des groupes favorisés, de simplifier la paperasserie.
de mentir aux électeurs pour se faire élire (Oui – nous sommes tous des “pauvres cons” ….)
de venir majoritairement des grandes écoles (qui représentent 34% du budget national d’éducation, mais seulement 6% du nombre total d’écoles), oû l’on ignore apparemment l’impossibilité de dépenser à perpétuité plus que ses revenus
de ne savoir qu’augmenter les impôts, dans les bonnes périodes tout comme dans les mauvaises
de s’attaquer constamment aux innocents, par exemple aux expatriés britanniques, allemands, hollandais et autres en augmentant leurs impôts, alors que ces étrangers ont investi d’énormes sommes dans la France et ne sont pas responsables des imbécillités économiques des gouvernements successifs
de favoriser les grandes entreprises prestigieuses au lieu des PME et des petits commerçants
de ne jamais culpabiliser, et de toujours accuser les autres : les Yanquis, les Anglo-Saxons en général, les banques, les agences de notation, les Grecs, le capitalisme, les Chinois, MacDonalds – et maintenant MEME LES ALLEMANDS!! QUELLE FOLIE!!
d’avoir permis de créer l’euro alors que tous les économistes renommés ont dit qu’il pouvait réussir seulement avec une union politique et fiscale – pour lesquelles AUCUN CITOYEN EUROPÉEN n’a voté
d’avoir – une fois dans l’euro – rapidement permis au budget national de dépasser la barre des 3% du PIB d’excédent budgétaire en disant: “Cette règle était conçue pour les petits pays, pas ceux comme la France.”
de permettre à l’élite de Bruxelles de se payer des sommes d’argent et des bénéfices pharaoniques avec très peu d’impôts
de ne jamais donner son soutien à la Grande-Bretagne, qui est pourtant très “pro-Europe” en principe mais refuse les imbécillités et les actions quasi-fascistes de Bruxelles (salaires et bénéfices insensés, refus de votes nationaux, imposition sur des pays souverains de dirigéants choisis par Bruxelles, la France et l’Allemagne etc.)
de vouloir en fait se débarrasser des britanniques, qui pourtant versent CHAQUE JOUR près de VINGT-CINQ MILLIONS D’EUROS NET à Bruxelles
Messieurs/Dames de l’élite – malgré vos diplômes de grande école, vos situations prestigieuses, vos belles paroles, vos gros salaires et vos bénéfices, VOUS AVEZ ÉCHOUÉ. Mais le pire, c’est que personne ne l’avoue; personne ne s’excuse. Tout le monde est responsable, sauf vous. Et vous ne faites que continuer avec les mêmes politiques, quel que soit le parti au pouvoir. C’est incroyable.
On méritait mieux … quand allez-vous assumer vos responsabilités?
Chris Snuggs – Ancien Directeur Des Études de l’ISUGA à Quimper
The brainless, drivelous bile snarled – or rather vomited – out by the terminally-brainwashed is staggering. No, she was not a saint, but a balance is called for. When she assumed power, Britain was in a shambles: dying industries, debt, inflation (which had reached up to 25% under Labour), unions thinking that THEY ran the country, excessive state interference and all the rest, culminating in the “Winter of Discontent”. By the time she left, things had been to a great extent put right, AND she had saved helpless British citizens from brutal fascists.
As for the miners’ strike:
– Each ton of coal dug in most of the mines closed had to be subsidized. It was cheaper to import coal.
– If a country is willing to subsidize ONE sector of the economy then why are not ALL workers entitled to a subsidy to “protect” their jobs? If MY private company is not making a profit, it goes bankrupt and I have to look for another job, although I get some dole and other benefits to help. I always failed to see why miners seemed to consider themselves a special case. We are ALL “workers”, including non-miners. I would in the private sector not expect other workers to subsidize me. Why should I? And in any case, someone has to EARN the wealth. We can’t ALL be subsidized.
– The reason why the miners thought they were special is also tied up in their leaders’ political beliefs: they did not believe in free-market economy but in a “socialist” one, and I am sorry but that path only leads to ruin as was seen in the USSR and elsewhere – and was increasingly evident in Britain until Thatcher arrived.
– A subsidy is money that if used to prop up a failing industry cannot be used elsewhere, either for investment in new technology, improved infrastructure or in welfare: education, health, pensions and so on.
– Given that it was cheaper to import coal, to continue subsidising it in perpetuity would be akin to making the mining industry part of the social services, forever dependent on benefits.
– No country can do this and thrive. No one sector of the economy deserves to be kept going on the backs of other workers whose taxes subsidize it.
– Thatcher was democratically elected THREE TIMES by the people, and you either believe in democracy or you don’t. As it happens, I do, however imperfect it is. The miners’ leaders did not believe in it. They not only failed to ballot all their members but were willing to break the law. You may not like the law, but one cannot pick and choose which ones to obey. Or if you do, that is anarchy.
– SCARGILL’S AGENDA: Scargill’s stated aim was to defeat (by illegal means) a democratically-elected government. For this alone, he had to be defeated, and ONLY Thatcher could have done it. Had she not succeeded, then Britain would still today be in thrall to the unions, endless strikes, increasing and increasingly-pointless subsidies, “Spanish practices”, falling productivity, declining industries gone the way of the once-magnificent British car industry and so on, and inevitably impoverishment. And with impoverishment comes fascism, because then the people get angry and you need an iron fist to control them. ALL socialist dictatorships have been ruled by an iron fist. ALL OF THEM depend on physical, military might to stay in power. NO THANK YOU SCARGILL.
– And please note that NO WESTERN DEMOCRACY has followed Scargill’s agenda. They have ALL privatised most of the “commanding heights” of Old Labour – they cannot all be wrong. Even the Noo Labour Party does not want Scargillism ….. hardly ANY of Thatcher’s reforms were rolled back by subsequent Labour governments. Apparently, the only people wanting a return to WilsonoCallaScargillism are in the Socialist Workers’ and/or Anarchists and “Class War” Parties, the ones smashing up Brixton and Bristol and now planning to disrupt her funeral.
As has been pointed out HERE, anarchists should applaud Thatcher for reducing state interference in people’s lives. AND after her you didn’t have to wait three months for a black telephone designed in the 1950s.
Thatcher’s error re the miners was to carry out her policy too fast and with excessive inflexibility, but as I see it whatever she had done would have provoked riots by those who had a non-democratic agenda.
As for MT in general, there is a hysteria of hatred on the part of the usual suspects which is both moronic and indecent. She did NOT “destroy manufacturing”. When she left, British industrial output was HIGHER than when she arrived. She destroyed a number of failing industries and regenerated the economy of Britain which had been driven into vast inflation and endless industrial disputes by the Labour Party.
What is needed even from those who hate her is some balance. She has received astonishing tributes from world leaders of all colours, shapes and sizes AND from the vast majority of the British people who elected her THREE TIMES.
HOUSING? Many thousands of ordinary working people got onto the property ladder thanks to her. IMHO anyone renting their dwelling is always a second-class citizen: forever at the whim of landlords, unable to feel master in his or her own house, unable to leave anything to the kids. She tried to improve on that, and succeeded. It is true that after her not enough housing was built, but to blame her alone for this is stupid. May I remind you that the last Labour government’s principal housing policy was to favour the odious, loathsome and disgusting policy of “buy-to-let”, which is no more than encouraging fat landlords to profit from poorer people’s homelessness.
THE FALKLANDS: She also stood up for democracy and freedom, including in the Falklands. No other bastard would have saved the Falklanders who – let us remember – were invaded by fascist colonialists. The idea that Spanish-descendents who butchered South American Indians and stole their land have a right to the Falklands is hilarious. People should read the history of those islands. Even Gorbachev acknowledged the role she played in the dramatic developments in Eastern Europe.
As for the cost of her funeral etc, she saved Britain over SEVENTY BILLION QUID by demanding and getting an opt-out from the EU budget. Let’s contrast this with Labour, which – in the few days AFTER losing the last election but BEFORE handing over the keys of the moneybox to the Tories – SIGNED AWAY yet MORE billions to Brussels. And when they finally DID hand over power they admitted: “There is no money left.” You could not make it up.
“There is no such thing as society.” As usual, she was quoted out of context. What she meant was that a strong society is one where individuals and their families work hard to improve their lot, thereby simultaneously improving “society”, since successful people pay more tax which helps to pay for the weaker. The idea that the state owed people a living was anathema to her, but is of course the ingrained mindset of the cretins dancing on her grave. NO SOCIETY can thrive without individual hard work, thrift and morality, which is what SHE grew up with and which coloured all her political beliefs. What a contrast to many in recent generations whose main thought is what the state should do for them.
WELFARE: Did she abolish welfare? RIDICULOUS. It was maintained and later grew under her government and since then of course has ballooned to insane proportions. If she were seeking to “destroy” industry and/or welfare and/or the working classes, then she utterly FAILED. What she did destroy was the disastrous, venal and undemocratic power wielded by irresponsible unions with an openly Maxist (= fascist) agenda.
Idiot. She did more for working people than any left-wing moron.
Your sneering is moronic:
She enabled many thousands to get onto the property ladder by giving them the chance to buy their own homes. If you do NOT have your own home you are ALWAYS a second-class citizen. How many politicians do NOT own their own home? Are ANY of the current “left” and pseudo-socialist politicians tenants? The current Labour Party favoured the odious “buy-to-let” policy to INCREASE the number of people eternally at the whim of landlords
Thatcher OPPOSED this cynicism. She did not LIKE this and as usual for her she DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Those on the left, of course, LOVE it, since it makes the non-propertied more likely to vote for them on the hilariously-delusional basis that the left somehow supports working people more. The North Korean Propaganda Minister would be proud of this staggering achievement in the art of brainwashing.
She stopped the public subsidy of dying industries so that more could be spent on welfare, schools, the NHS. Endless public subsidy of failing industries leads to economic ruin and inflation, which ALWAYS hits the poorest and weakest HARDEST. The closure of mines could have been done more gradually, but the miners under Scargill (Actually, only HALF the miners – he did not even take a vote of the whole industry) would have broken the law resisting closures anyway. His expressed aim was to bring down the democratically-elected government.
Putting contracts out to tender is worldwide accepted (except in Cuba and North Korea etc) as the best way to get value-for-money – OUR MONEY.
After the privatisation of BT you no longer had to wait months to get a phoneline installed.
She reduced the overweening, arrogant, interfering and profligate state. Excessive state interference in people’s lives always leads to misery. See any “sociualist” country and of course France, rapidly going down the pan economically and then of course socially.
She put a stop to the endless strikes, to the unions thinking THEY ran the country rather than the people’s elected representatives.
She ended the 25% inflation of the Labour era, the 98% tax on income of Wilson, the endless strikes. She was too late to save the car industry, which the unions destroyed.
At the end of her period of office industrial output and employment were HIGHER than at the beginning.
She specifically asked not for a fly-past or a state funeral to save our money. You and your ilk do not give a TOSS about our money.
Why do you think so many French say “We need a Margaret Thatcher.”
Oh, and she stood up for democracy, freedom and the right of self-determination: concepts you probably don’t grasp very well.
Law 1 of Government Finance: Whatever CAN be stolen by a government WILL at some stage be stolen.
Law 2: There is not a lot of point in ordinary and sensible people saving and wisely – but not greedily – investing their money as sooner or later some moronic government will steal it to bail out the morons who have spent and borrowed far beyond reason (usually the government itself of course). This theft can be achieved either by simply taking it or by engineering vast inflation to wipe it out and/or inventing some daft acronym such as QE or OFT.
Law 3: The plebs are so downtrodden and passive and with a memory span of about 10 minutes that governments can get away with Laws 1 & 2 without even having to deal with riots in Trafalgar Square.