PDA

View Full Version : Why are some folk keen on making a point at the funeral?



MrMark
13th April 2013, 12:52
Some are talking about turning their back as the procession passes by. Some are thinking of holding up the Saville-Thatcher picture...
What's the point? If you disagree with her politics join Galloway's Respect Party, or move to NK :grey
All seems a bit exhibitionism to me..

KentPhilip
13th April 2013, 14:44
It goes beyond them disagreeing with her policies - they have a personal hatred for her.

Also left-wingers, unlike right-wingers, need to protest publicly for what they want, because their agenda is all about bringing people together into a united consensus (unlike right-wingers who just want to be left alone to do their own thing, and their political activity reflects this). So holding up placards at her funeral is just part of this.

Doggy Styles
13th April 2013, 15:12
They are sheep, and sons of sheep.

VectraMan
13th April 2013, 15:25
They're just being trendy. I'd bet most of them vote Conservative in the privacy of a voting booth.

SimonMac
13th April 2013, 15:40
It goes beyond them disagreeing with her policies - they have a personal hatred for her.

Also left-wingers, unlike right-wingers, need to protest publicly for what they want, because their agenda is all about bringing people together into a united consensus (unlike right-wingers who just want to be left alone to do their own thing, and their political activity reflects this). So holding up placards at her funeral is just part of this.

Most of the people who are "protesting" are too young to be directly effected by any of her policies, so as said they are protesting because they think its the done thing. It shows the type of people who they are, they would rather hang onto 23 years of anger than put their big boy pants on and do something for themselves while the hard working people who benefited from her policies get on with their jobs, with a quiet nod to the lady as they do.

d000hg
13th April 2013, 19:15
Hating personally someone you never met based on their policies seems on a par with hating someone you never met because they support the wrong football team to me, or hating a company as if they are a person.

Also - when is the bloody thing? This article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/12/thatcher-funeral-television) has a lot of info on what colour ties people will wear and notes the program will start at 9:15am, but fails to mention which day...

KentPhilip
13th April 2013, 19:31
.. but fails to mention which day...

Wednesday.

Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_and_funeral_of_Margaret_Thatcher)

Peoplesoft bloke
13th April 2013, 20:12
Some are talking about turning their back as the procession passes by.

What's so wrong in that then? - seems a fairly restrained way to show disapproval to me. After all, this is a State Funeral in all but name, being paid for by all of us.


What's the point? If you disagree with her politics join Galloway's Respect Party, or move to NK :grey
All seems a bit exhibitionism to me..
What in hell's name has Galloway got to do with this? As for moving to NK; maybe you'd be more at home there - after all when they have a State Funeral for a dead leader, there is universal agreement on how wonderful that leader was and what a terrible loss it was - no dissent allowed.


Most of the people who are "protesting" are too young to be directly effected[sic]* by any of her policies, so as said they are protesting because they think its the done thing. It shows the type of people who they are, they would rather hang onto 23 years of anger than put their big boy pants on and do something for themselves while the hard working people who benefited from her policies get on with their jobs, with a quiet nod to the lady as they do.

The "big boy pants" thing here is to accept that if you're going to have such a public occasion rather than a quiet private one, some people may chose to use the opportunity to demonstrate their distaste and dissent. That's the price we pay for living in what's left of a free country.


Hating personally someone you never met based on their policies seems on a par with hating someone you never met because they support the wrong football team to me, or hating a company as if they are a person.
.
Agreed, but this person is a such a figurehead and so divisive it's hard to distinguish the person from the policies - of course that doesn't excuse hatred or inappropriate behaviour, but it may explain a restrained show of dissent at the public event. Naturally, if you feel Mrs Thatcher was some kind of saviour, this may rankle a bit - but the funeral could have been held in private.

As for all these cosy slap each other on the back postings about "evil nasty lefties" - keep it up, the only people you're kidding are yourselves. There are evil nasty folk on both "sides" of the Thatcher divide - but there are a lot of decent folks too. When you feel the need to continually belittle everything about people who disagree with you, maybe you're not cut out for living in a Western Democracy.

BTW for the avoidance of doubt, I do not condone noisy, violent or inappropriate actions at a funeral (I think banners or holding up Saville pics would be too much) - just free expression of views.

* except perhaps the educational ones?

SimonMac
13th April 2013, 20:17
The "big boy pants" thing here is to accept that if you're going to have such a public occasion rather than a quiet private one, some people may chose to use the opportunity to demonstrate their distaste and dissent. That's the price we pay for living in what's left of a free country.


Why does showing disproval have to become civil disobedience?! Some people will kick off for the sake of kicking off and that's what this is turning into

Peoplesoft bloke
13th April 2013, 20:29
Why does showing disproval have to become civil disobedience?! Some people will kick off for the sake of kicking off and that's what this is turning into

As I said, I don't condone that - but with this stuff there are long memories and old scores to settle. I saw a very interesting documentary about the (Thatcher era) Miner's strike once in which both sides (Police and Miners) acknowledged that they were all for a good punch-up - much as in footie violence - there seems to be something of this in some of us as a Nation.

Knowing that, it's a risk holding such a public and publically-funded event. I don't say it's right, but it's there and it's not the sole preserve of the left or right - some bloke on here commented how he's looking forward to kicking some crusties at the event - bluster, bravado, limp attempt at humour - maybe, but indicative of a vein of thought on both sides.

doodab
13th April 2013, 21:53
I think there is a lot of discontent in the country at the moment, we have a Tory PM & chancellor delivering the usual rhetoric about making hard work pay while hard working people are actually struggling, and in some people's eyes Thatcher was the prime mover responsible for unleashing the forces of capitalism that many blame for the spiraling housing costs, energy bills, travel costs & food prices, not to mention creating the me, me, me culture of corporate fat cats and greedy bankers.

I think this is a focal point for that anger, and it's going to be a flashpoint. I'll be staying well clear.

SimonMac
13th April 2013, 21:56
I think there is a lot of discontent in the country at the moment, we have a Tory PM & chancellor delivering the usual rhetoric about making hard work pay while hard working people are actually struggling, and in some people's eyes Thatcher was the prime mover responsible for unleashing the forces of capitalism that many blame for the spiraling housing costs, energy bills, travel costs & food prices, not to mention creating the me, me, me culture of corporate fat cats and greedy bankers.

I think this is a focal point for that anger, and it's going to be a flashpoint. I'll be staying well clear.

And what was the alternative, more people elected her than the Trade Union Secretaries who had the country by the balls

doodab
13th April 2013, 22:10
And what was the alternative, more people elected her than the Trade Union Secretaries who had the country by the balls

WGAS? I'm saying why I think people want to make a point at the funeral, I'm not saying they're right.

A lot of people are pissed off about all sorts of stuff, the divide between the haves and have nots is wider than it has been in a long time and rightly or wrongly a large segment of the population see her as the figurehead of a social trend which they perceive as the cause of their ills. Had she died before the banking crisis when people were feeling flush it would be less of an issue, but now people are struggling and stressed and angry they are much more likely to kick off given an excuse.

The current bout of anger and vitriol isn't purely because of what she did back then. She stood for something and her death provides a focus for a more general, nebulous feeling of discontent at the state of the nation.

SimonMac
13th April 2013, 22:16
WGAS? I'm saying why I think people want to make a point at the funeral, I'm not saying they're right.

A lot of people are pissed off about all sorts of stuff, the divide between the haves and have nots is wider than it has been in a long time and rightly or wrongly a large segment of the population see her as the figurehead of a social trend which they perceive as the cause of their ills. Had she died before the banking crisis when people were feeling flush it would be less of an issue, but now people are struggling and stressed and angry they are much more likely to kick off given an excuse.

The sort of people who are going to kick off don't need an excuse, granted the timing with the current bunch's popularity, or lack of it doesn't help but long and short, if she died during the height of the olympic euphoria people would still kick off.

doodab
13th April 2013, 22:26
The sort of people who are going to kick off don't need an excuse, granted the timing with the current bunch's popularity, or lack of it doesn't help but long and short, if she died during the height of the olympic euphoria people would still kick off.

There are some who will always cause trouble but the ease with which a rabble can be roused depends to a large degree on how contented people are. In the current economic climate people who would ordinarily have better things to do are much more likely to join in.

Like I said, it's a flashpoint. My feeling is that we could see similar levels of trouble to the 2011 riots.

DodgyAgent
13th April 2013, 23:40
I think there is a lot of discontent in the country at the moment, we have a Tory PM & chancellor delivering the usual rhetoric about making hard work pay while hard working people are actually struggling, and in some people's eyes Thatcher was the prime mover responsible for unleashing the forces of capitalism that many blame for the spiraling housing costs, energy bills, travel costs & food prices, not to mention creating the me, me, me culture of corporate fat cats and greedy bankers.

I think this is a focal point for that anger, and it's going to be a flashpoint. I'll be staying well clear.

You are a beneficiary of Thatcherism, in fact you are one of the biggest beneficiaries of Thatcherism. How dare you accuse others of materialism when you yourself through your job destroying "talents" have been feathering your own selfish little nest and filling your own boots on the proceeds of capitalism. And like the lefty hypocrite coward you are you will not argue for Thatchers reforms to be repealed.

Thatcher left a legacy of wealth creation and prosperity the fact that those entrusted with policing it failed was not her fault.

As for the current Tory party they have been left with the mess that your lot have left, with one hand tied behind their back spoilt hypocrites with your sense of entitlement seem to think that they should have cleared up the mess left by the socialists so you and your lefty ilk can fill your fat greedy little boots once again.

Another hypocretin you certainly are.

doodab
14th April 2013, 00:03
You are a beneficiary of Thatcherism, in fact you are one of the biggest beneficiaries of Thatcherism. How dare you accuse others of materialism when you yourself through your job destroying "talents" have been feathering your own selfish little nest and filling your own boots on the proceeds of capitalism. And like the lefty hypocrite coward you are you will not argue for Thatchers reforms to be repealed.

Thatcher left a legacy of wealth creation and prosperity the fact that those entrusted with policing it failed was not her fault.

As for the current Tory party they have been left with the mess that your lot have left, with one hand tied behind their back spoilt hypocrites with your sense of entitlement seem to think that they should have cleared up the mess left by the socialists so you and your lefty ilk can fill your fat greedy little boots once again.
Another hypocretin you certainly are.

You really have lost the plot now she's gone haven't you. ******* unfortunate that her "care in the community" policy means you're unable to get the help you need really isn't it :rollin:

BTW, hypocretin doesn't mean what you think it means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orexin

Oh and BTW #2, as you well know I have argued on many occasions that many of the social changes that it could be said Thatcher precipitated need to be reversed, the biggest being the widening inequality between rich and poor. That's why you insist on calling me a "leftie". It does appear that in your simple mind there are two kinds of people, you and the lefties, and no room for actual thoughts or ideas.

doodab
14th April 2013, 00:30
Also left-wingers, unlike right-wingers, need to protest publicly for what they want, because their agenda is all about bringing people together into a united consensus (unlike right-wingers who just want to be left alone to do their own thing, and their political activity reflects this). So holding up placards at her funeral is just part of this.

Do you mean right wingers who want to be left alone to do their own thing like the BNP? Or right wingers who don't protest publicly like the EDL?

KentPhilip
14th April 2013, 04:31
And like the lefty hypocrite coward you are ...

Another hypocretin you certainly are.

Alternatively maybe you mean a hypercrite and a hypercretin?


Do you mean right wingers who want to be left alone to do their own thing like the BNP? Or right wingers who don't protest publicly like the EDL?

No I mean right-wingers who want to be left alone to do their own thing, And engage in effective peaceful campaigning like UKIP.

Jeez it's dawn and the birds outside are making a heck of a racket. I swear I heard one of them start singing "ding dong.."

DodgyAgent
14th April 2013, 09:30
You really have lost the plot now she's gone haven't you. ******* unfortunate that her "care in the community" policy means you're unable to get the help you need really isn't it :rollin:

BTW, hypocretin doesn't mean what you think it means. Orexin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orexin)

Oh and BTW #2, as you well know I have argued on many occasions that many of the social changes that it could be said Thatcher precipitated need to be reversed, the biggest being the widening inequality between rich and poor. That's why you insist on calling me a "leftie". It does appear that in your simple mind there are two kinds of people, you and the lefties, and no room for actual thoughts or ideas.

You actually have not argued anything at all. You have simply made sweeping generalisations, tenuously linking todays problems with Thatcherism without explaining why. Neither have you explained why you sneer at "materialism" in "others" as a destructive entity without explaining how this squares with your own priviliged position.

Nothing you say is backed by any sort of argument. for instance the "widening inequality between rich and poor" what does this mean exactly? Does it mean that the poor are better off because there are more rich people? Are you saying that everyone should be poor in order to keep people like you happy? Or does it mean that people like you should be rich but everyone else should be poor?

You are not able (or intelligent enough) to put her reforms into the context of what went before her, you do not even bother to try and argue how she could have changed her policies to prevent the problems of today developing. The reason you do not actually explain anything is because either you cannot or you do not want to. So which is it bigotry or stupidity?

adubya
14th April 2013, 10:22
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DodgyAgent again.

doodab
14th April 2013, 10:34
You actually have not argued anything at all. You have simply made sweeping generalisations, tenuously linking todays problems with Thatcherism without explaining why. Neither have you explained why you sneer at "materialism" in "others" as a destructive entity without explaining how this squares with your own priviliged position.

I have cited on many occasions before she died evidence that high levels of income inequality in a society correlates strongly with all sorts of social ills including crime, physical and mental health. That isn't sneering at materialism in others, it's a critique of a society founded upon materialism, which is one of the underpinnings of Thatcherism. I'm also at a loss to understand why you think I'm "privileged" exactly? Because I earn more than the minimum wage?


Nothing you say is backed by any sort of argument. for instance the "widening inequality between rich and poor" what does this mean exactly? Does it mean that the poor are better off because there are more rich people? Are you saying that everyone should be poor in order to keep people like you happy? Or does it mean that people like you should be rich but everyone else should be poor?

Actually Dodgy most of what I say is backed by argument. The fact you haven't noticed is down to your being a small minded, ignorant, cretinous, malodorous, misanthropic irrelevant little spiv **** who is too thick to notice or comprehend.


You are not able (or intelligent enough) to put her reforms into the context of what went before her, you do not even bother to try and argue how she could have changed her policies to prevent the problems of today developing. The reason you do not actually explain anything is because either you cannot or you do not want to. So which is it bigotry or stupidity?

Actually Dodgy I did suggest how she might have done things differently, last time you came out with this line of ill thought out crap. I have also on several occasions (again before her death) said that what she did was necessary but that she should have done it differently. That seems to have passed you by.


Do you know any words other than cliche?

Had she actually given a thought to what would become of the local economies and developed a strategy for what to do with these people when they no longer had jobs she might have implemented that and offered them a better option than striking. As it was the only options these people were considering were to take it lying down or put up a fight, and her brutalist tactics only served to polarize them and strengthen their resolve.

The simple fact is that she was prepared to spend millions and sacrifice lives to defend the Falklands but appears not to have been in the least bit concerned with the welfare of the 190,000 British citizens that worked in the mines, or their families and local communities, they were simply "casualties" in her war with the unions.

A number of other people have given you facts and figures as well. All you do is trot out the same old tripe, which frankly doesn't hold up. At the end of the day you are a blind idealogue with no interest in reason or argument, so it's waste of time trying. Which is why you are on ignore where you belong.

shaunbhoy
14th April 2013, 10:37
I'll just be glad when the whole episode is over. Another dead politician................WGAS?

darmstadt
14th April 2013, 10:50
I'll just be glad when the whole episode is over. Another dead politician................WGAS?

Well obviously DA does ;)

Doggy Styles
14th April 2013, 10:50
You actually have not argued anything at all. You have simply made sweeping generalisations, tenuously linking todays problems with Thatcherism without explaining why. Neither have you explained why you sneer at "materialism" in "others" as a destructive entity without explaining how this squares with your own priviliged position.

Nothing you say is backed by any sort of argument. for instance the "widening inequality between rich and poor" what does this mean exactly? Does it mean that the poor are better off because there are more rich people? Are you saying that everyone should be poor in order to keep people like you happy? Or does it mean that people like you should be rich but everyone else should be poor?

You are not able (or intelligent enough) to put her reforms into the context of what went before her, you do not even bother to try and argue how she could have changed her policies to prevent the problems of today developing. The reason you do not actually explain anything is because either you cannot or you do not want to. So which is it bigotry or stupidity?These are all fair points.

But you have to remember that the psyche of most people then was of 'takers', a reliance on other people and the state to provide for them, including jobs. Encouraging people to change from that mind-set to more self-reliance was the right thing to do for the longer-term prosperity of the country, but inevitably painful because decades of featherbed industries (and their unions) left millions unprepared for the change, and many never managed it.

I have some sympathy with them on that score, although blaming Thatcher is merely blaming the situation that needed Thatcher in the first place, which clearly could not continue.

I don't know how else the government could have stopped subsidising loss-making industries, they did kick off a lot of re-generation schemes, but they handled some things crassly, like the poll tax, which gave the 'takers' more fuel to their protests.

DodgyAgent
14th April 2013, 12:39
I have cited on many occasions before she died evidence that high levels of income inequality in a society correlates strongly with all sorts of social ills including crime, physical and mental health. That isn't sneering at materialism in others, it's a critique of a society founded upon materialism, which is one of the underpinnings of Thatcherism. I'm also at a loss to understand why you think I'm "privileged" exactly? Because I earn more than the minimum wage?

So if this is the problem what is the answer? I take it you would support the repeal of Thatchers reforms so that everyone except the trade unions, politicians and the elite of the arts council were poor?



Actually Dodgy most of what I say is backed by argument. The fact you haven't noticed is down to your being a small minded, ignorant, cretinous, malodorous, misanthropic irrelevant little spiv **** who is too thick to notice or comprehend.


Show me one example where you argue a point, back it with evidence rather than overabundant use of manipulative cliches


Actually Dodgy I did suggest how she might have done things differently, last time you came out with this line of ill thought out crap. I have also on several occasions (again before her death) said that what she did was necessary but that she should have done it differently. That seems to have passed you by.

How? the country was bust and she had a choice between paying welfare benefits or investing the money in entrepreneurial activity (quite how this was going to happen you tell me?)



A number of other people have given you facts and figures as well. All you do is trot out the same old tripe, which frankly doesn't hold up. At the end of the day you are a blind idealogue with no interest in reason or argument, so it's waste of time trying. Which is why you are on ignore where you belong. Give me an example

You have not raised one single logical argument. You have no idea of how to debate. Like the rest of your ilk you believe that every argument needs to be won no matter how ridiculous it is. You cannot argue that her reforms should have been rolled back, nor can you show where the money was to come from to regenerate the economy and you seem to assume that money grows on trees.

DodgyAgent
14th April 2013, 12:41
These are all fair points.

But you have to remember that the psyche of most people then was of 'takers', a reliance on other people and the state to provide for them, including jobs. Encouraging people to change from that mind-set to more self-reliance was the right thing to do for the longer-term prosperity of the country, but inevitably painful because decades of featherbed industries (and their unions) left millions unprepared for the change, and many never managed it.

I have some sympathy with them on that score, although blaming Thatcher is merely blaming the situation that needed Thatcher in the first place, which clearly could not continue.

I don't know how else the government could have stopped subsidising loss-making industries, they did kick off a lot of re-generation schemes, but they handled some things crassly, like the poll tax, which gave the 'takers' more fuel to their protests.

At last whether I/anyone agree the point someone makes a proper reasoned argument. hypocretins take note!

Peoplesoft bloke
14th April 2013, 13:09
At last whether I/anyone agree the point someone makes a proper reasoned argument. hypocretins take note!

Bollocks

The only people who you consider capable of what you define as "reasoned argument" are those who broadly share your narrow view of the world.

DodgyAgent
14th April 2013, 14:15
Bollocks

The only people who you consider capable of what you define as "reasoned argument" are those who broadly share your narrow view of the world.

It may be narrow but at least I explain it which is more than what you seem to be capable of. You and your ilk have still not explained why Thatchers reforms should have been repealed nor have you disproved my argument that you contractors are beneficiaries of Thatcherism and you are therefore the epitome of the so called "greed and materialism culture fostered by Thatcherism. You say manufacturing declined under her which it did not. You say that she closed down the entire mining industry even though Harold Wilson closed more pits that she did. You even "argue" (ifone can call it that) that she could have done things differently despite the fact that her government offered the miners very agreeable terms to not strike. You even castigate her for making thousands of people jobless even though you are perfectly comfortable forging yourselves into millionaires by designing and building technologies that put more people out of work than anything that Thatcher could have done.

I am just confused as to what exactly your beef with Thatcher is. I have a feeling that it is more to do with either a hatred of women or some personal issue that haunts you. Or could it be that you simply feel guilty about removing so many HR jobs whilst making lots of money in the process and that you can like the true coward you are regain your moral consciousness by despising the person who made you rich.

DodgyAgent
14th April 2013, 14:18
Bollocks

The only people who you consider capable of what you define as "reasoned argument" are those who broadly share your narrow view of the world.


I do not necessarily agree with the point he made but IO respect the fact that he made it and argued it so eloquently. The reason why I have not made a counter argument is because - well I am not sure I can.

Having read the post I happen to agree with it, whereas you say you disagree but you do not explain why.

Peoplesoft bloke
14th April 2013, 14:38
I do not necessarily agree with the point he made but IO respect the fact that he made it and argued it so eloquently. The reason why I have not made a counter argument is because - well I am not sure I can.

Having read the post I happen to agree with it, whereas you say you disagree but you do not explain why.

I didn't say I disagreed - as usual, you assumed.

DodgyAgent
14th April 2013, 14:42
I didn't say I disagreed - as usual, you assumed.

Rightly

doodab
14th April 2013, 15:06
You have not raised one single logical argument. You have no idea of how to debate. Like the rest of your ilk you believe that every argument needs to be won no matter how ridiculous it is. You cannot argue that her reforms should have been rolled back, nor can you show where the money was to come from to regenerate the economy and you seem to assume that money grows on trees.

Actually ,in that post was a reiteration of a reasoned point that she should have had a strategy for dealing with the people she put out of work. She didn't. This was a failure. This is the second time I've given you this reasoned logical argument for how she could have done things better. Twice you've chosen to ignore it, presumably because you have nothing to say, being incapable of reasoned argument yourself, and prefer frothing at the mouth.

My ilk, as I have explained, is the ilk of those who look to science and evidence for policy decisions. You seem incapable of understanding that, or of recognising the existence of alternative ideas other than your own delusional you strawman rantings. You're just a bag of wind and piss.

Doggy Styles
14th April 2013, 15:35
Actually ,in that post was a reiteration of a reasoned point that she should have had a strategy for dealing with the people she put out of work. She didn't. This was a failure. This is the second time I've given you this reasoned logical argument for how she could have done things better. Twice you've chosen to ignore it, presumably because you have nothing to say, being incapable of reasoned argument yourself, and prefer frothing at the mouth.

My ilk, as I have explained, is the ilk of those who look to science and evidence for policy decisions. You seem incapable of understanding that, or of recognising the existence of alternative ideas other than your own delusional you strawman rantings. You're just a bag of wind and piss.I should clarify I didn't say they didn't have a strategy, it wasn't great but they did start several area regeneration schemes. The trouble was that the average Briton just wasn't the entrepreneurial type.

My main point was that it was inevitable that there would be pain because mind-sets had to change.

VectraMan
14th April 2013, 15:54
Actually ,in that post was a reiteration of a reasoned point that she should have had a strategy for dealing with the people she put out of work. She didn't. This was a failure.

That's not true. She did have a strategy. Her strategy was as with many other things that the free market economy would sort it out in the end, which it did in the long run. You can say more should have been done in the short term, but apart from creating new state-owned industries and funding them with tax-payers money, what exactly would you have done?

doodab
14th April 2013, 17:27
Her strategy was as with many other things that the free market economy would sort it out in the end, which it did in the long run.

Did it? I think you'll find that a lot of these areas have a high proportion of working age people who don't work. Effectively we stopped subsidising their jobs and started paying them directly. More importantly the culture and habit of working and taking pride in work has been replaced with something altogether less helpful, that if anything makes it harder for the free market to have a positive effect. If that was her strategy it was very poorly implemented.

minestrone
14th April 2013, 18:08
Maybe if these subsidised workers were not continually striking and causing general havoc to economy in their quest to run the country over the government we might have got along a bit better.

A general point about the coverage and online chit chat of this affair has been the amount of lies and general untruths passed around. Even tonight I heard on the news that she shut down the local steel mill, it actually closed in 1992 when under private ownership.

MarillionFan
14th April 2013, 18:13
Maybe if these subsidised workers were not continually striking and causing general havoc to economy in their quest to run the country over the government we might have got along a bit better.

A general point about the coverage and online chit chat of this affair has been the amount of lies and general untruths passed around. Even tonight I heard on the news that she shut down the local steel mill, it actually closed in 1992 when under private ownership.


Plus she sold all that gold at rock bottom prices before engaging in a War with the Taliban and Al Queda. Also heard she was responsible for that awful film John Carter on Mars last year. A truly heinous woman.

sasguru
14th April 2013, 18:22
That's not true. She did have a strategy. Her strategy was as with many other things that the free market economy would sort it out in the end, which it did in the long run. ?

:laugh:laugh

It did? Which country do you live in? Certainly not in the 3rd most indebted country in the world, the one without growth for 5 years, the one with a constant trade deficit because it imports much more than it exports, the one with 1.7 million people permanently on the sick books, the one with 25% youth unemployment, and dodgy free market banks which it had to bail out raising its debt GDP ratio from 40% to close to 90%, the one that squandered its North Sea oil to pay for unemplyment benefits?

Some of you live in cloud cuckoo land.

Peoplesoft bloke
14th April 2013, 18:35
I should clarify I didn't say they didn't have a strategy, it wasn't great but they did start several area regeneration schemes. The trouble was that the average Briton just wasn't the entrepreneurial type.

My main point was that it was inevitable that there would be pain because mind-sets had to change.

Thank flip for that - imagine if we were a nation of Alan Sugars?

Actually the "average" of most countries probably aren't entrepreneurial types.

Peoplesoft bloke
14th April 2013, 18:37
Rightly

FFS. You really are an oxygen thief.

VectraMan
14th April 2013, 18:46
Did it? I think you'll find that a lot of these areas have a high proportion of working age people who don't work. Effectively we stopped subsidising their jobs and started paying them directly. More importantly the culture and habit of working and taking pride in work has been replaced with something altogether less helpful, that if anything makes it harder for the free market to have a positive effect.

No matter how you look at it, pouring money into loss making industries to make the unemployment figures look better is no solution. Maybe those workers are too indoctrinated by the belief that they're victims they haven't made the necessary steps to improve the situation? Like, going somewhere else for example.

Easy to say I know, but common sense dictates that having a whole town based around a single employer is an extraordinarily bad idea, and anyone truly smart would have got out before the taxpayer funded gravy train ended. You can't blame Thatcher for that.


If that was her strategy it was very poorly implemented.

By definition, free market economy means the government shouldn't get involved. The only way a government could poorly implement a free market economy strategy is to try to implement a free market economy strategy.:rolleyes:

You seem to be advocating some kind of tax-payer funded special help for those areas. Which apart from being unfair to the majority, and undemocratic, is exactly the sort of thinking that got the country into such a mess in the first place.:suicide:

VectraMan
14th April 2013, 18:55
:laugh:laugh

It did? Which country do you live in? Certainly not in the 3rd most indebted country in the world, the one without growth for 5 years, the one with a constant trade deficit because it imports much more than it exports, the one with 1.7 million people permanently on the sick books, the one with 25% youth unemployment, and dodgy free market banks which it had to bail out raising its debt GDP ratio from 40% to close to 90%, the one that squandered its North Sea oil to pay for unemplyment benefits?

Some of you live in cloud cuckoo land.

At the risk of sounding like a Thatcher fan-boy, had she remained in charge she would have been horrified at all that and steered us in a very different direction. You seem to have conveniently forgotten about Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Now if people want to protest at their funerals...

ZARDOZ
14th April 2013, 19:19
No matter how you look at it, pouring money into loss making industries to make the unemployment figures look better is no solution. Maybe those workers are too indoctrinated by the belief that they're victims they haven't made the necessary steps to improve the situation? Like, going somewhere else for example.

Easy to say I know, but common sense dictates that having a whole town based around a single employer is an extraordinarily bad idea, and anyone truly smart would have got out before the taxpayer funded gravy train ended. You can't blame Thatcher for that.



By definition, free market economy means the government shouldn't get involved. The only way a government could poorly implement a free market economy strategy is to try to implement a free market economy strategy.:rolleyes:

You seem to be advocating some kind of tax-payer funded special help for those areas. Which apart from being unfair to the majority, and undemocratic, is exactly the sort of thinking that got the country into such a mess in the first place.:suicide:

But the UK failed on both counts, the market economy produced a smaller economy and we got a large unmovable block of unemployment. Prior to 1979 we were 5th biggest economy by GDP by 1990 we were 6th. In the time we dismantled our industrial base and put those workers on long term benefits, Germany encouraged their industrial base and went on to be the world's largest exporter. Last year their exports were greater than our 1 trillion debt. So please explain why what we did made more sense?

minestrone
14th April 2013, 19:30
One thing that people consistently forget is that the British, on the whole, are feckin tulipe at manufacturing.

doodab
14th April 2013, 19:32
No matter how you look at it, pouring money into loss making industries to make the unemployment figures look better is no solution. Maybe those workers are too indoctrinated by the belief that they're victims they haven't made the necessary steps to improve the situation? Like, going somewhere else for example.

Lets take the "what could she have done differently" argument and turn it around. Where should they have gone?



Easy to say I know, but common sense dictates that having a whole town based around a single employer is an extraordinarily bad idea, and anyone truly smart would have got out before the taxpayer funded gravy train ended. You can't blame Thatcher for that.


Surely it is the governments job to implement an economic strategy that ensures that whole towns aren't dependent on a single employer, especially when that government is about to pull the plug on said employer. Simply washing their hands of the situation and saying "it's the free market" isn't government. It's a cop out.


You seem to be advocating some kind of tax-payer funded special help for those areas. Which apart from being unfair to the majority, and undemocratic, is exactly the sort of thinking that got the country into such a mess in the first place.:suicide:

It also happens to be exactly what we have. It's called a massive benefits bill.

I'm not sure why it would be "undemocratic" or "unfair to the majority" to take short term measures to transform or revitalise a failing local economy. If people vote for it then it's democratic, and if it saves the majority money in the long run (and a thriving local economy instead of a benefits bill certainly would) then it's more than fair to them.

MarillionFan
14th April 2013, 19:37
One thing that people consistently forget is that the British, on the whole, are feckin tulipe at manufacturing.

And the service industry. All the restaurants and waiters / waitresses are foreign.

All in all the UK are pretty much crap at work. Period.

SueEllen
14th April 2013, 19:50
And the service industry. All the restaurants and waiters / waitresses are foreign.

All in all the UK are pretty much crap at work. Period.

Craftsmans weren't/aren't cr*p at their jobs.

Then again anything that takes years to train, in like the number of people who can be an "entrepreneur" is only suitable for a minority of the population.

We need jobs for the people who would be cannon fodder in wars.

One of the main reasons we have loads of unemployed people is there is no massive war or epidemic that would kill them off.

doodab
14th April 2013, 19:54
One thing that people consistently forget is that the British, on the whole, are feckin tulipe at manufacturing.

I'm not sure this is true. Historically we led the world at mass production, and even today British high tech manufacturers are as good as any you'll find. Where we lost out was in semiconductor and electronics manufacture. We practically invented the computer and many of the early firms were British. That we don't have an IBM, HP, Intel or Samsung in the UK is, to my mind, the single greatest failure of industrial and economic policy since the war.

doodab
14th April 2013, 20:19
There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations

And if that isn't the foundation of society then I don't know what is.

MarillionFan
14th April 2013, 21:20
Craftsmans weren't/aren't cr*p at their jobs.

Then again anything that takes years to train, in like the number of people who can be an "entrepreneur" is only suitable for a minority of the population.

We need jobs for the people who would be cannon fodder in wars.

One of the main reasons we have loads of unemployed people is there is no massive war or epidemic that would kill them off.

Are you suggesting we invade Poland before they errr? invade us? Bit late. :emb

BlasterBates
14th April 2013, 21:37
I had a quick check of the statistics. There are no unemployment black spots any more. Inner cities including London typically have "black spots" of 10% ...well 10% isnĀ“t good but is pretty good when you compare it to the rest of Europe. Scotland seems to be doing pretty well really.

minestrone
15th April 2013, 07:59
I'm not sure this is true. Historically we led the world at mass production, and even today British high tech manufacturers are as good as any you'll find. Where we lost out was in semiconductor and electronics manufacture. We practically invented the computer and many of the early firms were British. That we don't have an IBM, HP, Intel or Samsung in the UK is, to my mind, the single greatest failure of industrial and economic policy since the war.

We were rubbish, when I went to do mechanical in the early 90s the courses at recently been altered by the institute to add in 'manufacturing sciences' and management that were never taught before. It is inconceivable that we were punting out graduates that had no clue about quality, stats or how to manage a production process.

Much of the drive to do this stuff in other countries came from industry but we had British Leyland and not Toyota.

VectraMan
15th April 2013, 09:08
Lets take the "what could she have done differently" argument and turn it around. Where should they have gone?

If your argument is "there are no jobs", as we often hear today, have a look at the unemployment figures:

United Kingdom Unemployment Rate (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/unemployment-rate)

Unemployment went up significantly in the mid-80s, but then fell again through to the end of Thatcher's reign until the recession messed it up a bit, before continuing to fall again. If it's really true that Thatcher destroyed industry, destroyed whole areas, and left people with no hope of ever finding work again in their lifetimes as we always hear, where are all those people? How come there was less unemployment in 2004 than there was in 1979?


Surely it is the governments job to implement an economic strategy that ensures that whole towns aren't dependent on a single employer, especially when that government is about to pull the plug on said employer.

I agree completely. But that wasn't Thatcher. That was all the years of state run industry and control that preceeded her. Thatcher did ensure that whole towns aren't dependent on a single industry, although you may not like the way she did it, you obviously agree that it was the right thing to do.


I'm not sure why it would be "undemocratic" or "unfair to the majority" to take short term measures to transform or revitalise a failing local economy.

You're still not saying what those measures actually should have been. Please tell us.

doodab
15th April 2013, 09:57
If your argument is "there are no jobs", as we often hear today, have a look at the unemployment figures:

United Kingdom Unemployment Rate (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/unemployment-rate)

Unemployment went up significantly in the mid-80s, but then fell again through to the end of Thatcher's reign until the recession messed it up a bit, before continuing to fall again. If it's really true that Thatcher destroyed industry, destroyed whole areas, and left people with no hope of ever finding work again in their lifetimes as we always hear, where are all those people? How come there was less unemployment in 2004 than there was in 1979?

Sorry, lets get this straight, you're arguing that although unemployment went up sharply under thatcher and didn't recover until 14 years after she left office that it was all none of her doing? And because these areas have partly recovered after 20 years she didn't do any harm?


Thatcher did ensure that whole towns aren't dependent on a single industry, although you may not like the way she did it, you obviously agree that it was the right thing to do.

By ensuring they had zero industry to depend on? She needed to do to build some resilience and potential for recovery into the system before she pulled the plug.

ZARDOZ
15th April 2013, 10:01
If your argument is "there are no jobs", as we often hear today, have a look at the unemployment figures:

United Kingdom Unemployment Rate (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/unemployment-rate)

Unemployment went up significantly in the mid-80s, but then fell again through to the end of Thatcher's reign until the recession messed it up a bit, before continuing to fall again. If it's really true that Thatcher destroyed industry, destroyed whole areas, and left people with no hope of ever finding work again in their lifetimes as we always hear, where are all those people? How come there was less unemployment in 2004 than there was in 1979?


.

That's an easy one to answer, because being on long term benefits doesn't classify as being unemployed, therefore it doesn't count in the statistics. Prior to 79, there wasn't so many hidden unemployed.

original PM
15th April 2013, 10:03
hmm I think to get the changes needed (such as removing 1 industry towns) you will always need to wait a generation to see the benefits.

Many of the people affected by the changes Thatcher made will be bitter (and it was hard on them) - but they are missing the fact it offered their children more opportunity.

It will be the same if sweeping changes are made to the benefits system (for example not giving free money/housing to girls who see pregnancy as a career choice).

It will be tough for that generation but not so for the next generation as it will not be an option for them.

northernladuk
15th April 2013, 10:07
Be interesting to see the news coverage and see how many of these 'protesters' are even old enough to remember her in office. Looking at the pictures of the 'celebrations' in Liverpool it just looked like another excuse for the lawless to cause trouble. I am not sure how 20 odd year old scouse hoodies can understand what she did or who she is.

DodgyAgent
15th April 2013, 10:15
Sorry, lets get this straight, you're arguing that although unemployment went up sharply under thatcher and didn't recover until 14 years after she left office that it was all none of her doing? And because these areas have partly recovered after 20 years she didn't do any harm?



By ensuring they had zero industry to depend on? She needed to do to build some resilience and potential for recovery into the system before she pulled the plug.

Zero industry - stats please? and how was she to build anything with no money to invest? Are you suggesting

1. Money grows on trees?
2. Rather than make welfare payments money should be used on investing?

Most importantly What exactly do you mean by investing?

doodab
15th April 2013, 11:24
Zero industry - stats please? and how was she to build anything with no money to invest? Are you suggesting

1. Money grows on trees?
2. Rather than make welfare payments money should be used on investing?

Most importantly What exactly do you mean by investing?

TBH she may have been best off continuing to subsidize the coal industry. That's what the West Germans did and it seems to have worked for them.

In fact you could argue that she was driven ideologically to close the mines, not by her belief in free markets, but by her opposition to reliance on fossil fuels.

DodgyAgent
15th April 2013, 11:27
TBH she may have been best off continuing to subsidize the coal industry. That's what the West Germans did and it seems to have worked for them.

She did try very hard to negotiate reform with the miners and Scargill saw this as an opportunity to wage a class war

doodab
15th April 2013, 11:28
She did try very hard to negotiate reform with the miners and Scargill saw this as an opportunity to wage a class war

Agreed. It takes two to tango and Scargill was a bit of a ****.

Goatfell
15th April 2013, 13:02
By ensuring they had zero industry to depend on? She needed to do to build some resilience and potential for recovery into the system before she pulled the plug.

Well, obviously that wouldn't have worked as there was no slack in the workforce for redeployment due to the full employment in those pre-Thatcher Golden Years.

She 'didn't pull the plug', it had taken many decades for most of these titans to finally go belly up, she was merely present at the last rites.

darmstadt
15th April 2013, 13:10
She did try very hard to negotiate reform with the miners and Scargill saw this as an opportunity to wage a class war

It was like a brick wall being hit with a demolition ball, the ignorant against the arrogant.

DodgyAgent
15th April 2013, 13:14
It was like a brick wall being hit with a demolition ball, the ignorant against the arrogant.

How do you know what it was? I thought you had fled abroad to feather your own nest

sasguru
15th April 2013, 13:42
How come there was less unemployment in 2004 than there was in 1979?

.

Simples. There are now 1.7 million (!!!!) long term sick (i.e. on some form of disability benefit) that are not counted in the unemployment stats.

shaunbhoy
15th April 2013, 13:46
I will always be grateful to Maggie for trialling all-day Pub opening in Scotland the year I turned 18!! :banana:

As for almost everything else, she can burn in hell, the condescending old trout!! :spank: