Thatcher is Dead
Heard the news this morning that Thatcher is dead.
There will be much partying on the streets of what she left of the UK tonightSocialist underachievers will always hate Thatcher.
The woman is dead, i can see why some hate her and some loved her but to say what is happening to the country now is all her fault is absolute rubbish.
If the UK had a strong leader now we wouldn't be in the mess we are, i doubt if Thatcher would have turned away from the challenges of the expenses debacle, the European Union debacle, the immigration debacle, the banking debacle and the rubbish that went on over Iraq and Afghanistan and many many other things that are crippling our country today.
I care not if she is alive or dead but i wont celebrate the fact she is.She's equally hated by socialist over achievers and some conservatives.
She changed the country from an industrial based economy into a financial services depot so yes, we can put the state of the country now firmly at her door..She rid us of petty communistic union control, over burdoned state interference, the drain of nationalised industries. Tony Blair did much worse and the current crop of incumbents are totally rubbish.
The country needed to be sorted and would not have lasted as an economic industrialised nation as it was. Only those who did not take advantage of the opportunities available are uncomfortable with Thatchers times.
I doubt as I have said the country would have been in such a position if Labour were in power all those years and for sure it would be a region of one of the European powerhouses by now.
As I said not really a fan of hers but I still think she was one of the best leaders this country has ever had.Rid us of over burdened state control! Good heavens man, what country do you live in? She increased the power of central government beyond all belief taking many powers of local government into central government.
She increased the powers of the police, turning them into a para military force!
I'm speechless, next you'll be telling me she gave all school kids free milk!She was elected 3 times, somebody obviously liked her.
As SimeyC pointed out, a lot of people vote the way their fathers voted without thinking of the consequences.
Such is the parliamentary system inn the UK that a party can be elected into power with a minority of votes, that does not make their selection a proper reflection of the feelings of the whole country.
BTW, a little story going back into the mid 1970s, an elderly neighbour was gushing with gratitude for the help she received from the local council and bemoaned the day when and if the Conservatives lost power to the labour party. At the time there wasn't a single conservative councillor in the city and hadn't been for some years.
Looking at YouTube, the Britons are celebrating............with parties! Can YOU imagine?! Totally disrespectful indeed......
Funny how now she is dead and still causing trouble
We have a particularly foetid left wing in Great Britain.
"Ding dong, the witch is dead!"
Last Updated, 6:13 p.m. The BBC on Friday rejected loud calls to ban the song “Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead” from its airwaves after the apparent success of a Facebook campaign to celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher, the divisive former prime minister, by driving sales of the tune from “The Wizard of Oz” up the British singles chart.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0 … ?ref=worldIt is difficult and hard to say something nice of what she did
She will always be a lesson on what a leader should not do!
As the (insert epithet of your choice) herself said: "Just rejoice at that news"
No matter how much I disagree with a person's politics and influence, I will not rejoice at their death.
There is an old saying..."Do not speak ill of the dead." I will not partake in this as I liken it to the stoning of someone who can no longer speak up. I despise those who take liberties of kicking the dead down the road. Who died and left you people God?
I agree, I felt the same way when Chavez died and people were rejoicing.
Agreed.
--------------------------------------------------------
I do not rejoice at the death of an old woman but I do rejoice at the death of a despot and tyrant.
That isn't the same as wishing somebody dead.
Unfortunately the damage she did lives on.Ok to be fair here, when Adolf Hitler was declared dead, how many Jews do you think celebrated his death?
When Bull Connor died in 1973 in Alabama, how many Blacks do you think rejoiced at his death?Millions; however, for many Jews who survived the holocaust, it was a bittersweet celebration as many were the remnants of their families. Of course, many Blacks in the South celebrated wildly when Bull Connor died.
I agree. There was a time when I might have, but not now... too many years have gone by. Of course, I did not live in the UK under her reign...
Oh dear was she hated so much..... I remember her being in power, and being called the iron lady, but it is never nice to hear of anyone dying. Somebody kept voting for her.....
She was loved by 50% of the people and hated by 50% of the people.
I lived in Wales at the time and most hated her - in fact many commented they were disappointed she wasn't killed in the Brighton bombing. I never understood this type of hatred and never will. I may disagree with people's views and opinions but I'd never wish them harm for having these views....Not true, even at her highest share of the vote, she never achieved 50% and she was voted in with as little as 35% of the vote.
She did not represent the people.
If you had been alive during WWII would you have wished Hitler dead or that he had a long life?I didn't say she recieved 50% of the vote - my experience was that love and hatred for her were split evenly. It's a subjective comment...and there are not many British governments that get 50%+ of the vote - that's the way it works. She was given a mandate under the law by have the 'majority' of seats....
As for Hitler - I would have wanted him brought to justice - whether that meant death or life in prison would be down to the international courts. Comparing MT to Hitler is a little unfair though - she caused a lot of heart-ache for many I am sure (me included I was unemployed for several years) - but she didn't kill millions of innocent people.I'd certainly challenge your claim that she was loved by 50%! Many of those who voted for her party could not abide the women.
Just my experience - I knew a lot of conservatives who were very passionate about her. I also knew lots f Welsh people who passionately hated her.....it's very hard to give an objective figure 20 years or so after...
...and I'm sure that some who loved her when she first was voted in hated her when she finished her career - it's a very fluid thing...
Concur, it is analogous to comparing a lion to an inland taipan. I have volunteered John to write a hub on Ms. Thatcher to get his eyeview on the subject at hand.
I think plenty of UK citizens have expressed what happened to them and their families during her governance, they lost their jobs, their unions were destroyed, the could not find work, their communities impoverished and if they protested they were brutally beaten by the police.
Does that mean you agree with the comparison?
I am not really qualified to comment, I don't know enough about the issue and I did not live there, the comparison seems extremist to me but that is an amateur opinion at best.
Ok, sensible answer. Have you ever heard that Thatcher had over 6 million people put to death? That seems the bar one would have to hurdle to be compared to Hitler, IMHO.
Comparing Thatcher to Hitler is perfectly reasonable. Perhaps you are only thinking about what Hitler did to the Jews, but Hitler also decimated many parts of England with his bombs. Ever heard of the blitz? And that is EXACTLY what Thatcher did to many parts of the UK, decimated it.
After the second world war the communities were rebuilt, not so after Thatcherism. Three decades later there are entire communities that are STILL suffering because of her policies."STILL suffering because of her policies." - and the policies of all the other governments after her. You can't blame her for the fact that the policies are still being used - the labor governments that followed her had ample opportunity to remove every Thatcher policy - so the blame goes squarely on them not Thatcher....
We have only had versions of Thatcher since Thatcher, including Blair. Thatcher laid the foundations for financial deregulation, and yes, each PM since has gone along with this idiocy. However inadequate social programs have been to regenerate battered communities, those initial policies were Thatcher's. The blame, not just for the closure of the pits, but for leaving entire communities without any hope and prospects during her premiership, lies fairly and squarely with her.
I agree that what happened in her tenure is solely her responsibility - but the following governments have to take the blame for continuing her policies. You can complan about her legacy, absolutely - but what went on after her was down to the governments who thought her policies worked and continued on with them.
Thatcher taught them just how effective sucking up to Murdoch can be, when it comes to elections and spewing disinformation. As I've said, imho, Thatcher never left the building, each PM is just Thatcher reinvented.
So we can also place Blair in the Hitler catagory then, the effects of his premiership will be felt for generations to come, that's if the UK survives of course.
Absolutely, every Pm since Thatcher has been equally as corrupt and disingenuous. Blair disgusts me as much as Thatcher.
I think it is the nature of the beast. Politicians are fast becoming hated figures.
Like America a lot of this is down to the lethargy of the voter. Voters continue to vote in the 'same old same old' and therefore nothing will ever change. I remember when I lived in Wales if we had a sheep as the local MP it would have still been voted in such was the dominance labor had locally! I remember arguing with friends who voted labor simply because their father's did and their father's did - etc. I tried to convince them that they should vote based on the policies and what would likely help the country most....it was a lost argument before I even started!
This has to change if we want real change in the US and UK - one idea that has been around for a few years is to vote out the incumbant - make it so they have to fight for their jobs and they may suddenly start listening to the people!Agreed, both left and right often become dyed in the wool. I'm traditionally a Labour voter but wouldn't consider voting for a party (labour) that still pimp the war criminal Tony Blair around at election time hoping that his presence might garner a few votes. (although I don't think that was a very shrewd move anyway) Most of them wont even speak out against him and the atrocities in Iraq that he is responsible for. How could you vote for a party like that?
Blair disgusts me even more than Thatcher, at least she never pretended to be of the left.
Sorry, but comparing Thatcher to Hitler just doesn't fly, no matter how much you disagree with her policies. AFAICT, she didn't (a) try to invade several European countries, or (b) send six million people to their deaths in the gas chambers.
And I also agree with Simey and Izzy amongst others - I just can't condone the cheering/celebrating at her death. Someone would have to be really, really evil for me to even consider doing that - and even then I'd do it in private.+1 on both points. Exaggerated comparisons like that really don't strengthen the arguments about the damage she did to communities.
I don't really see the point of celebrating her death. For the past few years she lived as a sick old woman with dementia. No matter how much people hated her they couldn't have wished anything worse on her.
And it's coming for most of us (well at least old age and death), no matter whether we deserve it or not.
The thing I would have wished on her, and the lot in office right now, if I was all powerful, is that I could make them live for a bit the lives of the desperate people they hurt, while fully aware that it was their policies that caused this. Unfortunately my powers to alter the time-space continuum have so far failed to materialise.EF, it depends who you are. My mother regularly compares Thatcher to Hitler and is speaking specifically about the damage she created in communities. She survived both the blitz and Thatcher.
In terms of Thatcher not invading other countries, she may not have done, but she did support apartheid in South Africa; if were down to her Nelson Mandella would still be prison and black South Africans would still be second class citizens in their own land.
And then there's her relationship with Pinochet. Ok, so she didn't commit the atrocities, but she didn't speak out about them either when she was in a position to do so. She just ignored them and befriended him. That's bordering on collusion in my book.
So, as I say, it depends who you are and what position you were in at the time. Whilst you may only have been slightly and temporarily affected by her and policies- other people's lives were ruined because of her policies. Clearly not everyone will view her through the same lens as you.
Not once have I cheered or publicly celebrated her death, despite my personal feelings for her. But I still think it's reasonable to compare her with Hitler when we look at both her domestic policy and support for mass murderers abroad.I think this present comparison between Thatcher and Hitler is as a result of a post I made which was misunderstood. To the comment that the poster could never celebrate the death of a person, I asked how they would react to Hitler's death, would they be glad or would they wish him a long and healthy life.
That was in no way intended as a comparison between the two, only as an example where one my be allowed some settlement at the death of a tyrant.
I do however wholeheartedly endorse Hollies comments.The comparison (although you didn't make it) is often used when describing Thatcher, within the context of the destruction to the communities that she was responsible for.
But on reflection, as I've said to EF, she also supported mass murderers included Pinochet and Pol Pot. She may not have been the murderer, but she endorsed, supported and ultimately colluded with them.
But if fairness, she's not the only PM who has.
The only reasonable comparisons to Hitler would be Stalin and Pol Pot. Anything else is just hysterical rantings.
Or the US government. An independent research estimates the death toll of Indian American between 10 to 114 million, making it the greatest massacre of all times.
That may be, but again Thatcher can not be included in that comparison.
Interesting that you mention Pol Pot, despite the blood on his hands, Thatcher maintained that he was the real and recognised leader of the Cambodians.
The comparison to Hitler is incomprehensible.
If I was going to compare Thatcher to anyone it would be to any of the many Social Democratic leaders in Europe who managed to preserve their world class industries and the essential decency of their welfare systems throughout the turmoil of the seventies and early eighties.
Thatcher did neither.So, you've lost me now Will- why would you compare Thatcher to them if she had not made comparable achievements? Or is that point?
I did my hub on Thatcher several years ago, it won't get changed in the light of her death.
No, I asked a straight forward question, not a comparison.
Regardless of what I think of her, she got elected and had a democratic mandate.
John has a rather strong view of Mrs Thatcher which he is perfectly entitled to....
I think that most people would be saddened by the death of anyone.
Just remember she was Prime Minister for an awfully long time and people voted her into powerMargaret Thatcher does it her way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1jY5fYjV-UHa ha, actually I prefer this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyU8qmzGsEg
A bit unclear about whether she's getting a state funeral or not. However if so, I definitely think it should be privatised! I am sure she would approve.
She actually requested not to have a state funeral - so it's definitely a 'privatized' ceremony!The funeral is apparently going to be in St. Paul's cathedral and there will be military honours, so that sounds like a state funeral.
At her request the public will not be allowed to look at her corpse lying in the coffin. I have the word for that at the tip of my tongue, but it's refusing to come forward to my mind.
OK, I lolled but I thought it was distinctly unfair. I quite liked John Major. At least he wouldn't scare you if you met him in a dark alley. And he was relaxed enough to enjoy a day's cricket.
To put it in the language of the time, Thatcher was like the Death Star. Major was more like c3po.
Thatcher was one huge reason England was a good nation. Since she has been gone, England has been pathetic.
If England can get more people like her at the helm, well then there is hope after all for that dismal nation.She had no effect on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland during her time as PM of the United Kingdom then?
Like any leader Mrs. Thatcher did some good things and some bad things. From a Welsh, Scottish, Northern Ireland perspective it did seem that she didn't do anything good - especially with the destruction of the coal mines - but this wasn't necessarily simply against these countries, it was also bad for the North of England. Back in 'those' days there was a huge divide between the North and South and you'll find just as much hatred in Yorkshire as there was in Wales, Scotland etc.
If you look objectively at what happened during her 'reign', Britain as a whole did pretty well economically - sadly the 'wealth' was not spread equally. There are also some that argue that the destruction of the unions was a good thing - I partially agree with that as the unions had too much power - but to destroy them so totally and to do it at the expense of the miners was wrong.
I always find it difficult when any leader (Labor, Conservative, Democrat, Republican) are judged in any way that is 'black and white' - there are simply too many variables....
BTW I'm an Northern English Lad who lived in South Wales for thirty years - my father worked for the coal board and I was adversely effected by the Thatcher government by being unemployed for several years and having to go on a Job Training Scheme for little pay!!
You know, I don't understand you. I would never have put you down as one in favour of big government, an authoritarian leader who was divisive and who increased the power of government hugely!
Just shows how wrong I can be. Oh, and the reason why we are such a pathetic nation these days? Well she died yesterday.Maybe you do but we don't.
We sat at the top of the tree for thirty or so years after WWII with consensus government, virtually full employment and low taxes until Thatcher came along and blew that out of the water. Keep your strong leaders to yourself please.
She didn't endear herself to those at the centre, certainly not to left of centre, with her idea of politics. As for heroically defending the Falklanders' rights to self-determination, if she hadn't made public her decision to stand down the defences in the South Atlantic - such as they were, an unarmed survey vessel and a handful of Royal Marines for the whole of the Falklands and South Georgia region - and only a few marines based at Port Stanley, General Galtieri might not have envisaged landing his army there. All she did was recoup her position.
Settling the miners' dispute was done at the cost of many jobs in the industry, now considered a risky line of work with safety standards gone to the dogs. Both Arthur Scargill and Maggie share the blame, namely Maggie for taking attacks on her political stance 'King Arthur' too personally and Arthur for successfully alienating many NUM members, enough to establish the breakaway UDM (a repeat of the 1920's miners' strike fiasco broken by Winston Churchill).
It was the 'Poll Tax' that did for her in 1990. Edging her out of No.10 in a vote of no confidence John Major (our one-and-only secondary modern-educated PM!) took the helm and rescinded her legislation, introducing the much fairer 'banded' council tax. With the 'Poll Tax' every member of a household over the age of 16 had to pay or be paid for, seeing many unemployed under-18's out of their homes because the council bill was too high. There was also the additional embarrassment of recently deceased people being billed for the tax period beginning April until their deaths, leading to bills going out to, e.g.: 'Mr Tom Watson, dec.' That wasn't necessarily down to her, but it was 'on her watch'. Still you know what they say, "Sh** sticks!"
Nor were tears and tantrums the best way to leave Downing Street. It was one thing modelling yourself on the likes of Winston Churchill, something else falling back on a woman's emotions when things went wrong for her.
You can't have it both ways, Maggie, but rest in peace. We can't back at you now.I note that a petition has been submitted to the official government petitions site calling for any plans for a state funeral to be stopped
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/45966
One suggestion is that those who lined their purses as a result of her policies can contribute to footing the bill instead.
Further than that, a call has been put out over social media for mass action to disrupt the state funeral if it does take place.
In my nearly 60 years of life, I have never seen a reaction like this before. People in the UK might have secretly been glad when a hated politician or member of the royal family died, but there was never such a reaction. It reflects the amazingly high level of hatred this person generated by her contemptible policies.
Thatcher was totally without compassion, racist and a little-Englander. She ruined many communities with her vicious policies. Before she became Prime Minister, she was best known by the epithet "Maggie Thatcher, milk snatcher" because in her role as Minister for Education she destroyed the policy of free milk for school children, which played an important part in ensuring nutritional support. Being universal, it meant children from poor homes were not subject to the humiliation of being singled out. The cost was miniscule compared to the cost of Thatcher's later warmongering in Las Malvinas.
Someone from Ireland, whom I know, made the point that MT was the best recruitment campaign ever for the IRA. New memberships were at a peak during her reign.
As for my beloved Wales, the land which adopted me and gave me a home; it comes among the regions that suffered the most from the policies of this woman.
Here is a response from the wonderful song "Yma o hyd", written in 1981 by Dafydd Iwan, which has more or less become a second anthem for Cymru Cymraeg (Welsh-speaking Wales)
Cofiwn I Facsen Wledig
Adael ein gwlad yn un darn
A bloeddiwn gerbron y gwledydd
'Mi fyddwn yma tan Ddydd y Farn! '
Er gwaetha pob Dic Sion Dafydd,
Er gwaetha 'rhen Fagi a'I chriw
Byddwn yma hyd ddiwedd amser
A bydd yr iaith Gymraeg yn fyw!
We remember Magnus Maximus,
who left the land as a whole unit,
and we cry out to all other nations
"We will be here until the Day of Judgement!"
Despite every "Dic Sion Dafydd"
Despite old Maggie (Thatcher) and her gang
We will remain until the end of time
and the Welsh language will live!
References:
Magnus Maximus: Roman general, who was seen as founding father of several dynasties of Welsh kingdoms.
Dic Sion Dafydd: Thiis is a reference to a satirical poem written in the 19th century by John Jones, better known by his bardic name of Jac Glan-y-gors, about Welsh people who moved to London and hoped to become more upwardly mobile by renouncing the Welsh language
For those who are interested, here is a more recent version of Yma o Hyd sung by Dafydd Iwan. Maggie ('rhen Fagi) has been changed to "old enemy" since she was not longer relevant, and some new words have been added at the start. It makes me cry. One day, I hope my adopted land will be free of English domination. I will be among the first banging on the doors asking for citizenship of beautiful Wales.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WooUv0QttKsShe won't have a state funeral - she'll get a public funeral with military honours. Presumably the army will be necessary to hold back the celebrating crowds.
Out of interest, would you sign a petition to stop Tony Blair from getting a state funeral when he dies? or any other Prime Minister who has abused his or her power? If you want to be objective, no prime minister deserves a state funeral, every one of them has had some detrimental impact to some region of Britain - the North of England have been treated very badly by many Prime Ministers as has Cornwall, as has....etc. etc.
I know you didn't direct this question to me, but no I don't think any prime minister should get a state funeral except those currently in office (if they die that is, obviously).
Absolutely, I would!
Blair is one of the greatest sleazeballs ever to exist, and he learned his sleaze from Thatcher, for whom he has openly declared admiration on many occasions. He is a total opportunist. He joined the Labour Party, because he considered he would do best there. He then directed huge efforts at destroying what that party used to be.
At one time, I used to campaign for Labour during elections. The day Blair got elected, I vowed never to vote Labour again. For many years, I did not vote at all either in national or in local elections. Currently, I am lucky enough to live in an area where I can support an honest party with a leader, whom I admire hugely, so I have become politically active once again.
This article is illuminating
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … -etiquetteI thought the conclusion sound -
" There is absolutely nothing wrong with loathing Margaret Thatcher or any other person with political influence and power based upon perceived bad acts, and that doesn't change simply because they die. If anything, it becomes more compelling to commemorate those bad acts upon death as the only antidote against a society erecting a false and jingoistically self-serving history."
The petition to deny this woman a state funeral, posted at http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/45966
has passed 20,000 as of nowI know it's probably pedantic, but she really isn't going to get a state funeral. That's been announced.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013 … t-thatcher
She'll get a ceremonial funeral. Only a small distinction (no vote in the Houses of Parliament, no sailors pulling the gun carriage) but no point in agitating to stop a state funeral when it's already been announced that it's not going to happen.I'm sure that you and others like you would not worry her one jot. One of her greatest achievements was to neuter minority agitators and relegate them to the lowest level. One day, when you all grow up, perhaps you will learn that just because someone holds a political view opposite to yours does not entitle you to disrespect them or their memory.
PeterOne of her greatest achievements was to neuter the UK.
You do realise that one of the minorities that she neutered actually had more supporters than she did?"When someone holds a political view opposite to yours"??
Most people do, LOL, but they are not in power to do anything about it.
I am sorry Maggie has died, because she was a helpless old woman at the end up, and a threat to no-one.
But she destroyed the Scottish heavy industries and confined a generation to the scrap heap.
Not just in Scotland, of course, but to the North of England and Wales too.
And let's not forget she brought in the Poll Tax, a year ahead of the rest of the UK. I was one of those who went out marching against it. I was also among those who prevented sheriff officers from taking goods from the houses of those who wouldn't or couldn't pay it.
He policies were divisive - the rich got richer and the poor became poorer.
Even worse, she is the cause of the birth of 'New Labour' who under Tory Blair were even more right-wing than she was. they are ones who stopped student grants and brought in loans. They took her vision a step further towards denying further education to students from poorer backgrounds.
She also destroyed the Scottish Conservative Party. I think by her final year they were down to just 2 MP's out of 65.I wonder why she was the most hated though - she's not the first English Prime Minister, nor the last Prime Minisiter who will do damage to Wales, NI, Scotland, North of England, Cornwall etc.
Why was there no call for any other PM to not have a state funeral. I'm a proud Britsh man who was born in England and lived in Wales most of my life - I like many was touched by Margaret Thatcher - my dad worked for the coal board and I was without a job for many years - but I do not understan this type of hatred - she was one woman who had a cabinet - who was voted in several times - so someone must think she did right.
Do I agree with everything she did? No - I'd say that perhaps 30% of what she did was good - while the majority put Britain back - but I still respect the office and feel that if a petition manages to change something like this, then Britain is worse off.I don't think state funerals are the norm for former prime ministers. I believe only Churchill had that honour (and that presumably was because of WW2). This is why the Thatcher's potential State funeral (which is not really a State funeral, but is a funeral+) is such an issue.
Ahhh fair enough - I made a bad assumption. I did read that Thatcher specifically stated she didn't want one - so why would her wishes be ignored anyway?
Just found this on wikipedia:
Several other notable people and former prime ministers have been awarded a full state funeral:
Sir Philip Sidney (1586)
Admiral Robert Blake (1657)
Sir Isaac Newton (1727)[3]
The Viscount Nelson (1806)
The Duke of Wellington (1852)
The Viscount Palmerston (1865)
Lord Napier of Magdala (1890)
The Rt Hon William Gladstone (1898)
The Earl Roberts of Kandahar (1914)
The Earl Haig (1928)
The Lord Carson (1935)
The Rt Hon Sir Winston Churchill (1965)
Benjamin Disraeli was offered the honour of a state funeral, but refused it in his will. The famous nurse and statistician Florence Nightingale was also offered a state funeral, but her family opted for a private ceremony. Charles Darwin (died 1882) was honoured by a major funeral in Westminster Abbey, attended by state representatives, but this does not seem to have been a state funeral in the formal sense.
The most recent state funeral for someone outside the royal family was that of Churchill in 1965. His was the largest in world history, with representatives from 112 nations.[4]The only difference between his state funeral and that of the sovereign was the gun salute: prime ministers get a 19-gun salute as a head of government; the sovereign receives the full 21-gun salute, as head of state.
Despite initial speculation that Margaret Thatcher would be accorded a state funeral, after her death in 2013, the government indicated that she would not receive a state funeral "in accordance with her own wishes".[5] Instead, she was to be accorded a ceremonial funeral with full military honours at St Paul's Cathedral, as authorized by Queen Elizabeth II.[6]
As I wrote (above) it was her 'Poll Tax' and the handling of the miners' dispute. The smoke screen she threw up around Galtieri's invasion of the Falkland Is. has to be seen as nothing short of opportunistic. It was her publicising of her aim to stand down defences in the South Atlantic that drew the Argies in. The gi-normous expense of sending in a task force need not have been met if she'd 'kept the wraps on' until the plan was either ratified or rejected. By that time Galtieri would have gone and their own smoke screen would have been blown away by the succeeding government. Maggie was no Poker player!
This is just too funny! "just because someone holds a political view opposite to yours does not entitle you to disrespect them", in close proximity to "One day, when you all grow up".
And just because somebody doesn't agree with your views, doesn't make them "minority agitators" relegated to the lowest level.
Ding Dong the witch is dead, party time in Scotland. Scotland never voted for Thatcher in any of her 3 election wins and she brought us to our knees.
Thatcher did not understand the common working man and stamped down on them hard as the rich got even richer and the poor were wiped off the sole of her shoe like dog poop.
She destroyed the mines, the dock yards and the steel industry and didn't even pause for a breath.
Yes I admire her for what she achieved for herself and other women through her hard work but what she did with all of that power Britain will never forget.
The Argentinian Ship The General Belgrano was sailing away from the Falkland isles back to Argentina when she sent the order to blow it out of the water Starting the Falklands war.
I celebrate the death of Maggie Thatcher and pray that there will never be another leader of her ilk again.
Come to Scotland and join the party in George Square, Glasgow the champagne is flowing.....jimmySay it like it is, Jimmy! lol
I will not celebrate her death simply because my own father died just a month and 2 days ago, and I am devastated.
Regardless of whether she will be remembered as a cause for Good or Evil, her own family are now mourning a much-loved family member.
Off-topic a little, but my new (incomer) neighbour shared with me a wonderful story she heard about Dad, through friends of hers.
A farmer had an accident, leaving him with a broken back and neck.
My Dad, when he was still working as a GP, attended, but there was no neck brace for the man.
Ever the engineer (he'd have made a great engineer), he fashioned a neck- brace out of discarded items he found around the farmyard.
The man was later flown away to hospital where the surgeon later told him my Dad had saved his life.
I'd never heard that story before, but I think it is lovely.You have every right to your opinion and I agree with 99.99% of it - I just can't celebrate the death of anyone regardless of any damage they have done to me. I do however respect your right to feel the way you feel and 'protest' or 'celebrate' the way you want to!
To be totally honest with you Simey, when it came on the news this morning my initial reaction said it all I jumped out of my chair and cheered like a loony just like i would do if my favorite football team had just scored the winning goal of the cup final. I did not think that I could react like that on hearing about the death of anyone but it was a gut reaction.
Fair enough - when someone is responsible for so much devistation it is understandable - and if I had been older when I was unemployed and could not get a job at all then I probably would be far more bitter..
Thatcher might be dead but her legacy lives on. I see no reason for celebration.
I get what you are saying, but will be more interested when the whole country wakes up and realises that there is room for improvement in the current system.
I don't know how you feel, but I can't get the MPs expenses scandal out of my mind. Kudos to those who exposed it.
I long suspected it, but had no evidence.
Every party was involved. Not all MPs but a sizeable proportion.
I do not trust politicians now, even those within my own Party. Those who want a seat in Parliament are suspect.Yep, I always think of the expenses scandal whenever politicians pontificate about the "entitlement" culture, etc. etc.
Then there is the disgusting Grant Shapps aka "Michael Green, the internet guru" and his traffic paymaster business selling scraping and spinning software. Or the odious Tony Blair, amassing a personal fortunate, and not paying taxes on it......I could go on. It's the disgusting hypocrisy that really gets me.
But, I don't have much hope of the country waking up to anything. I think it is very telling that Labour only won after they (almost) became to the right of the Tories. I don't know what it is about people! Turkeys voting for Christmas.
Wish I could, Jimmy! Have a double of a decent malt for me!
I don't think she did anything for women in general, to be honest. I think she regarded herself as an honorary male.This is how I see it too. If anything, she set the women's movement back. Who would want another woman prime minister after her?
It's funny - I would guess that a majority of men would say she helped women because she was so strong and stood up to the male oriented establishment. However, it's interesting to see the point from a woman's perspective and see that many think she was just setting herself up as a pseudo man...
Well that is not what people in the UK think.
Here is a report on some of the celebrations that broke out when people heard the news:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013 … on-glasgow
I would go so far as suggesting the whole country needs a good slap as a wake-up call.
What is the problem - is there too much inter-breeding? If the Jeremy Kyle show is anything to go on, the working class masses need to be shot. Or given a shot of something.
These people can't see past their next benefit cheque.
They are certainly not capable of being in charge of a vote.
But they are not the typical 'working class' this country was built on. What has gone wrong, and where?She was a murdering tyrant, an imperialist racist and destroyer of communities. Her death has been widely celebrated in my home city of Glasgow and in working class communities all over the country. The celebrations will continue. But the important thing is to take the battle to her ideological heirs who are currently pillaging the country today.
Let's celebrate the death of a tyrant. I've never understood how a woman could be proud of being called the iron lady.
Women have long been thought of as weak and nice by patriarchal society. In order for women to be successful, they have to be TOUGH, BITCHY, and UNRELENTING. Nice women do not advance to the top of the corporate echelon and/or to the top of anything else. Let's us get real here. Margaret Thatcher was a STRONG woman, an iron lady. There is NO SHAME in that. Yes, Margaret Thatcher is an IRON LADY so are many female politicians, both liberal and conservative.
Rugby, my home town was once famous for engineering. The first turbo jet engine was built and tested there. Now it is notable for warehousing.
She allowed industry to die in order to kill the unions, so now, almost the entire economy rests on the financial sector (that hasn't worked out so well). She killed public housing to buy votes. Now housing is just about the most expensive in the world. She made London very, very wealthy by financial liberalisation for a brief period but everywhere else is a distribution point for imported goods.
On the other hand, Labour was pitiful, the unions were led by donkeys and the rich had already demonstrated their commitment to the country by leaving for low tax regimes after the oil crises.
So, it would be easy to say the country got what it deserved.As a non-Brit, or any of the other regions, I of course have no footing to say what she was or wasn't.
So I won't, but it is certainly your prerogative to do so.
However, I will say this, as a person;
Of those commenters that are celebrating her death ...
I am sadly disappointed by some of the familiar names I see here, that I would never had expected to hold such a ghastly position as to be glad someone they disagreed with is dead.
Merely a one-time statement. If you want to address it for the benefit of yourselves - go for it. I will not be revisiting the invective of this thread. I want no part it, or association with those that express it.
Unfortunately for me, I feel the loss of those associations is mine, for I have enjoyed past forum conversations with many of you.
I have no doubt those of whom I speak could give a whit. As expected.
GAThe extreme left in the UK is just as unpleasant and irrational as the extreme right in the US. They both celebrate the deaths of their 'enemies'.
Having said that, Thatcher really did preside over the destruction of hundreds of communities up and down the country. Some of that destruction was inevitable after the oil crises. Enterprises that had survived in an era of very, very cheap oil were not going to survive after the arrival of OPEC. Some of that destruction, though, was driven by ideology. Many people had their lives ruined for no good reason, so the hatred is understandable if undesirable.Someone should write a hub describing their experience under Ms. Thatcher. John, would YOU like to do this? It would be greatly appreciated. Now, let me return to watch some more History Channel documentaries on youtube. Perhaps I should watch THE DARK AGES, sounds interesting.
The Extreme Left in the U.S. are nothing but fanatical fascists.
So...
I get the feeling that Thatcher was to England what the second George Bush is to America?At first glance you would think what a lot of people didn't have a good word to say about Prime Minister Thatcher- until you realise it is the same 4 or 5 all ranting about something they know absolutely nothing about. What we have is some nauseous back slapping contest.
Time to grow up kiddies and learn on which side your bread is buttered as you collect your social security hand-outs.
PeterAbout 95% of posters disliked her.
And if you guys are anything like the US you'll find the poor collecting social security are majority conservative, the left is 7% wealthier here on average.I do not, and never have, collected social security in nearly 60 years of life. I do not intend to apply for it in future either.
Sorry, but just trying to follow your logic- people who disagreed with Thatcher and all that she stood for are obviously kiddies who were not around at the time and ultimately welfare dependent?
Just out of interest, how did you reach this conclusion?It is self evident. People who are on welfare more than likely hate any politician who is not pro big government.
It might be "self evident to you" but statistically it's untrue.
It might be self evident to those who are on welfare- but I'm not on welfare, neither is WA or John. Nor can I see the deduction when it comes to our age and not being around at the time. Again, skewed logic.
And how many have to rely on social security "hand-outs" precisely because Thatcher permanently destroyed so many jobs?
You accuse me of not knowing anything about Thatcher! Where were you in the eighties? Did you see your home town razed to the ground and replaced with nothing? Did you see unemployment shoot up to 75% leaving only those in menial low paid jobs in work? How many people did you know who killed themselves out of despair?John - in the 1980s I was attending meetings with fat cat union bosses in South London attempting to free supplies of medical drugs and equipment the pickets were preventing from reaching patients in hospitals - I was trying to get bodies off mortuary slabs where they had lain for weeks because the unions would not allow the bodies to be buried or cremated and so and so on. Quite frankly if you think unemployment reached 75% then you are living in a real Walter Mitty world. Don't waste my time in replying you have nothing to add.
PeterQuite frankly if you read the post you responded to, he specifically said unemployment in his area rose to 75%.
As it did in many areas throughout the industrial belts in the UK.
The same happened in my area and the blame can be laid firmly at Maggie's door.Apparently only Peter's views and experiences of Thatcher and her policies are valid!
IzzyM - That was not what he said- read it again
Peter
Hollie - substantiate your wild accusations with a few facts - or on the other hand don't bother as you obviously live in the same fantasy world as izzyM and John
PeterAs far as I am concerned this subject is now closed
PeterWhich claims, exactly, would you like me to substantiate peter? And can I ask why you feel the need to resort to name calling, ask a question and then, in the same breath, dictate that we are not to answer it?
I asked you to explain your reasoning, that is not a claim it is a question!
John said "Did you see your home town razed to the ground and replaced with nothing? Did you see unemployment shoot up to 75% leaving only those in menial low paid jobs in work? "
Specifically note the words "your home town".
This sets the pace for his later sentences. He was talking about his home town.It would have been obvious to anybody who could see straight that I was referring to unemployment in my home town, not the privileged south east.
ETA sorry Izzy, didn't spot your post until after I had posted.
So by your own admission you have no idea how the rest of the country was being screwed into the ground by Thatcher!
And this is typical of Tory voters, especially during the Thatcher years.
We became a nation of haves and have-nots, with the haves believing that the have-nots deserved everything coming to them as they were all work-shy working-class wasters.
Maggie polarized Britain and brought out the worst in people.
I still have no time for anyone who worshipped her. It says more about them than anything.
It is painful to listen to the news bulletins now, with all the media apparently taking the "Maggie was the greatest prime minister ever" stance.
Re-calling Parliament just to allow the MP's to rave about her was pitiful. They all got £3,750 plus expenses just for turning up.
And that gem of information came from the Daily Mail who are as right-wing as you can get.I read about that too. Which is a bit rich to say the least. I do feel that the media is stoking the flames though Izzy. Do they want a riot, and if so why??
You know, it never occurred to me that they could be stirring things. That's a scarey thought! My immediate thought on the hearing they were getting paid expenses was "pigs in the trough again", and maybe even right wing newspapers are pissed off with that.
I think there's an element of that though, the pigs in the trough. But I also think there's so much bad blood, not just when t comes to Thatcher but because of the things that are happening at present with all the other changes to NHS, welfare etc.. It's a weird time- the media are not getting their own way and the right wing press, because in the main it is them, are really peeved with the new proposals for press regulation and such.
Protests against the bedroom tax etc were planned for this Saturday before the news of Thatcher's death- it was always going to be a tense occasion- but now- feels like their stoking the flames. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's as if the perfect storm is brewing.Ahhh, the bedroom tax.
The only person I have discussed that with is my right wing lazy good for nothing nephew, who after spending 10 years at university only to pick up a degree he could have got in 3 years, promptly made himself bankrupt to avoid paying back his massive student debts.
He seemingly not only thinks Thatcher's death is enough to send him into a state of mourning (which is really strange considering he was only born the year she came to power), he thinks the bedroom tax is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Anyway, he did not reply to the points I made, although some of his right-wing pals did until I shot them down.
The people likely to be most affected by the bedroom tax are those who already suffered greatly under Thatcher.
They had their family-sized local authority homes, and after they got laid off, their rents were paid for them by the Social Security.
Being workers at heart, even although they could not obtain new work, they put their heart and souls into their homes, turning them into mini-palaces.
They lovingly tended their gardens, and probably grew their own vegetables and fruit.
Now, all these years later, their families have flown the nest and they risk being turfed out onto the streets if they cannot find the extra money being asked for.
Who else is likely to have a council house with more bedrooms than required, but this generation?
The only people likely to gain from this move are single irresponsible parents, who will not take care of said property and certainly won't have time to look after the garden unless they could grow weed.You see, Izzy. I think there is another agenda behind all this. They'll force out older couples and disabled people and then offer the houses, not to families who really are overcrowed, but to individuals who are in a position to buy (remember the something for something rhetoric?) Don't be surprised if they give three bedroom houses to couples without children, then they'll sell off the housing stock and not replace it. Their intention all along- no social housing left.
Was it really a 7 hour tribute to her in the House of Commons?
I don't know. Probably. The news was full of it, anyway, giving us snippets of what this, that, and the other said about her.
I dunno, 7 hours at X amount an hour, could be some politicians did very well financially out of this.
Plus their £3,750 of course.
No wonder this country is nearly bankrupt!
I think Glenda Jackson did a good job with her speech. "“The basis to Thatcherism - was that everything I had been taught to regard as a vice - and I still regard them as vices - under Thatcherism was in fact a virtue: greed, selfishness, no care for the weaker, sharp elbows, sharp knees. They were the way forward".
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ma … da-1822905None of Glenda's speech was reported in the BBC or ITV news. That is very telling, don't you think?
What a fantastic speech!
She brings it all back.
I remember the mental hospitals being closed, and people who had been in-patients for 40 years or more being thrown out into the community.
These people had been institutionalised, and there was no half-way house.
A lot of flats went on fire and a lot of people (neighbours) were injured or killed after that little debacle. Care in the Community was a huge failure.
The selling off of council houses meant not only a huge housing shortage, but the unfairness of people being able to buy a cut-price house, when I and many others had never even been on the waiting list for one, because as workers we could afford housing - as those people could, but hey a 90% reduction on a house price is fabulous!
It was such a bad move. Great for some, but bad overall.
My kids went to school in the 80s. There were never enough school books to go round, and there was always fundraising events.
And yes, people died on trolleys in hospital corridors waiting for beds to become available.
Of course, now they can't find a hospital open to give them emergency care.
This will be the 'Great' put back in Britain that Maggie is being praised for.
Makes me sick!I'd forgotten about "care" in the community!
One day in the 80's a group of two or three of us were walking down a street in Manchester when we heard a terrible screaming and crashing of furniture coming from an attic flat. Convinced that somebody was being murdered we started to try to break into the house.
An old chap came out from next door and said "it's OK , she's not being murdered. She's on her own - care in the community! She'll calm down in a few hours and then be all right till the next time.I was a nurse at the time, and know for a fact that the majority of Care in the Community people were victims twice over.
They were admitted to mental institutions because they were pregnant and unmarried or similar stupid reasons dating back to the 20s.
There, they were doped up to the eyeballs on mind-numbing drugs, and subjected to cruel and unnecessary 'treatments' like lobotomies or electro-convulsive therapy (I witnessed someone undergoing this treatment in the late 70s).
After all that, they became institutionalised and pliant.
It is heart-breaking to think that someone may have spent most of their adult lives in such a place.
The one day, they were papped out. Under Thatcher, their 'home' was closed.
With absolutely no social skills, these people were expected to live in the community with back-up help from 'carers' who they did not know.
There was no period of preparation, not that it would have worked anyway.
While these people should not have been put away in the first place, finally dumping them into the community wasn't good for them either.
There were fires. There were frequent fires and many lives were put at risk/and-or lost.
In many respects, putting these people into the community on their own was like handing matches to a 4 year old.
Thanks Maggie! You made Britain great again! or should that be 'grate'?
That's it in a nutshell.
I was living in Africa during some of the Thatcher years and came back to find Central Scotland in the grip of utter misery. The coal mines had all been closed down and some towns in my area had almost 100% unemployment. The young men were running wild because they had all expected to follow their dads into the pits, and suddenly their future had evaporated. Small businesses were all collapsing because their customers were all unemployed and had no money to spare. It was an awful time and the main reason I hightailed it to Australia.I saw that earlier- superb and so very, very accurate.
"As education secretary—prior to becoming prime minister—she cut school milk for elementary school children and won her first nickname, "Thatcher the milk snatcher."
lifted from http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04 … death-obit
For me as an outsider that is significant to assess her true character.
She also supported Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, that is interesting. She even called Nelson Mandela a "terrorist".
She supported dictatorship, but I don't really think she is on a level with Hitler. History will not be kind to her just because we as a society is becoming liberal minded.Maybe not on a level, Pretty Dark Horse, but in some respects comparable.
I used to work with adults with learning difficulties around the time and after when I was at university, all kicked out into the community. It was a bloody nightmare, that's all I can say.
Ralph,
Wow, she must have been pretty bad. I certainly despise President Obama's politics, but I wouldn't celebrate his death or wish it upon him. What did she do to make you hate her so much?
I guess I should have read the entire thread before posting, but your statement caught my attention.What I can't understand is why so many Americans who supposedly love small government and personal freedom love her so much.
I'm a bit confused. How did she grow the government? I'm not really debating you here, only learning. You live in the UK, and I do not. Your perspective is interesting to me.
It's not actually a perspective, it's what happened!
She took a lot of the powers vested in local government and gave them to central government. She increased laws impinging on freedom - at one stage the police were stopping people going about their business and not letting them travel in certain parts of the country.
There is more but I'm off out in a minute, so more later.That would violate many conservative beliefs. Why is she so well regarded by conservatives then? I know she and Reagan generally, but not always, seemed to get along quite well. What did she do to endear herself to conservatives? I must be missing something.
She's regarded well by conservatives for attacking trade union rights, redistributing wealth from poor to rich, tax breaks for the rich, shutting down nationalized and unionized workplaces and her aggressive nationalism in Ireland and the Malvinas, anticommunism, among other things.
Sounds like a precursor of our Tea Partiers.
Conservatives do not believe in taking money from the poor to give to the rich. That's your bias, spin, and belief. As a conservative, I have no desire to take money away from a class of people who are suffering. That's simply not what conservatives believe. You may think that's what we believe, but then again, isn't that what you believe about capitalists in general?
Conservatives do not just believe in tax breaks for the rich. They believe in tax breaks for everybody. Liberals and socialists just want to focus on the fact that we do not want to tax rich people into oblivion or redistribute wealth. The truth is that we don't want to tax anybody into oblivion, rich or not. We want to help poor people up but not with perpetual handouts. We want to help poor people out of poverty, and this is not accomplished by taxing the rich to give to the poor. It's accomplished by promoting job growth, the kinds of jobs that help poor people out of poverty. Taxing people into oblivion doesn't result in a whole lot of job growth.
Yes, generally speaking, we are not big union supporters.
I don't know what Thatcher was or wasn't for. As for me, I liked her for one reason. She seemed very supportive of America's foreign policy. I wish I could say that I know more about what she did in the UK. I can't claim that. I suspect that most Americans who like her feel that way for the same reason; she seemed to be a good ally for America. Beyond that, I must admit my ignorance about her policies. I will say, however, that your understanding of conservative ideals is highly skewed and incorrect.You can argue all you want that conservatives don't support a redistribution of wealth, but the proof is in the pudding, when conservatives are in power, the rich invariably get richer and the poor get poorer. When policy is to close down industry, attack collective bargaining, push people into low paid jobs and create mass unemployment the effect is to impoverish people. You may say that is not the intention, but it is the inevitable result. It has been the thrust of every Conservative Party leader in this country since Thatcher. Your denial would be akin to you claiming communists support nationalisation and me arguing that we really believe in direct collective ownership, which completely ignores that nationalisation is a precursor to and an aspect of the process of direct collective ownership.
But I do agree, that when it comes to her admiration from American conservatives, this is largely because of the other things i mentioned, her anti-communism (which is indicative of her anti working class and anti poor agenda), her imperialism in Ireland and support of the likes of Pinochet, apartheid South Africa and what would become the Taliban, which aligned her with the United States in the marching against history, in the imperialist camp. It's also important to note that her dismantling of the British economy was meant as an attack on 'old' industry which was to be replaced with 'new' industry which meant opening up the economy to American business interests, thereby giving the US ruling class new markets to exploit.First off, I find it interesting that so many self-proclaimed socialists and communists support democrats but never once republicans. It’s an interesting observation.
I think we all know how the poor do under socialists. How are the poor doing in North Korea? How about China?
There are some statistics that favor democrat presidents, when it comes to how well off poor people are under their administrations. I won't deny that. However, I do not consider George Bush a fiscal conservative any more than I consider JFK a fiscal liberal. The water is pretty muddy when it comes to comparing all democrats versus all republicans in this area. Still, your statement is false. Poor people do not, under either party, get poorer. That's statistically incorrect. As for UK politics, I can't say. I never have professed to know enough about UK politics to speak intelligently about it.The Thatcher debate is not just about *poor* people, but about the way a prime minister nurtured a police state and brutalized her own citizens, not just financially. To many here she was a tyrant and caused untold misery.
Yes, I have to admit I don't know much about her politics. I am only refuting some of the comments about conservative views. I am not defending her, as I do not know much about her politics.
I think you've just seriously offended the North Koreans by calling them socialists. I think they would be better described as die-hard communists.
China on the other hand is a rather strange country, in some way there is rampant capitalism. It is also a one-party system, however, so it's the party members and their associates who get rich.
If you really want to look at a socialist system, how about the Scandinavian countries. And yes, I think the poor over there are better off than the poor in countries like the UK and the US. Not just the poor, somehow I doubt that terminally ill cancer patients are declared "fit to work" in Sweden, and having their benefits stopped."First off, I find it interesting that so many self-proclaimed socialists and communists support democrats but never once republicans. It’s an interesting observation."
Where are the "self-proclaimed communists?" I haven't noticed any in this forum nor very many socialists. Perhaps you should check your dictionary or your Econ. 101 text on the definition of socialism.Ralph,
There is much discussion about whether or not some of the nations we have mentioned are communist or socialist. Please see all current questions in the poltical forum as proof. Wikipedia says, "Although North Korea is officially a socialist republic and elections are held . . ." I'm not saying it is socialist, but there is room for discussion. There's also room for discussion about China. It has some mixed-economy aspects that were touched upon earlier.
Right off the bat, we have Josak and Comrade Joe. I might be mistaken, but I believe they are both at least socialist. Let's hear them speak.Yes, Comrade Joe is apparently a self-proclaimed Communist. I hadn't run across him until today. I haven't seen any others.
We go back. We had an interesting discussion about North Korea recently, but for some reason, he won't return to the forum. I'm guessing it has something to do with North Korea's recent nutscapade.
Socialist being different to Communist despite how people mistakenly use them interchangeably.
so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
Noun
1. A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the public.
2. (in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism
When I call myself a socialist I mean definition #1, I believe when North Koreans call themselves socialist they mean the second. Not that they at all fit the mold of what Marx laid out.Yeah. . . they are different. We get that. Didn't Marx say, among many things, that socialism was a lower stage of communism?
Wikipedia says, ". . .the terms 'socialism' and 'communism' were often used interchangeably," when discussing both Engels and Marx. You'll have to excuse me if I use the two interchangeably. Some of the founding fathers of your ideology started the ball rolling when it comes to interchangeable definitions.That's precisely the point, neither Marx nor Engels had anything to do with the founding of socialism, socialism was an established economic system when Marx was born. They sort of invented communism but not socialism, they used the word socialism as the second definition, merely part of a greater movement to communism, it means something else.
If I was this ignorant about Capitalism people would rightly rip me apart for even commenting on it.
Of course what we now call communism is radically different to what Marx and Engels created, they were a species of leftist anarchists if anything, syndicalists for lack of a better word.Josak,
You are that wrong about capitalism, and people do rip you for it.No, we have a good understanding of capitalism seeing the affects of it all around us every day.
You are totally wrong about socialism only having as an example what your masters tell you is socialism but which is nothing like socialism.I guess all I know of socialism is what my masters have told me, help me understand it please.
Spend a couple of hours reading posts by Josak and Comrade Joe, but isn't it much easier to just believe what your capitalist masters tell you?
Try this - it's a bit heavy in its praise of the USSR but away from that it's sound.
http://www.socialism.org.uk/socialism21/ch6.htmI don't think I'm interested anymore maybe if you want converts you shouldn't be so insulting.
Didn't think you would be, which is why I didn't waste my time.
BTW if you think that's an insult . . . .I do think its an insult and typical of the type that thinks socialism works. You can throw as many out as you like you are protected by a computer, you wouldn't be so insulting in person as your type never stands their ground.
Where was the insult? I answered your question!
Isn't that comment "typical of the type" and "your type" insulting?
I'd say nothing via computer that I would not say to your face.You're the one that is bothered and feels insulted, you come here.
My masters? Ah, and now you've lost any credibility you had.
Cop out!
Sorry, didn't realise that you thought you were without masters.
Where did you get your understanding of socialism?I learned about socialism in college, through reading, and through observations of the POTUS.
"As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents."
George Orwell
By your tone and statements, you seem to be proving Orwell right on at least half of his quote.My point exactly, the US has never had a socialist President, ever.
You do pretty much the same for the opposition.I disagree. The POTUS is quite likely a socialist. We've never had a socialist, prior to our present president. By the way, that part of my comment was satire.
Satire or not, Obama might believe in socialism, but he keeps it pretty well hidden.
Well it's hidden from socialists across the world.
It's not hidden from the conservatives across America. I did not like Clinton, but he looks like a conservative compared to Obama.
OK, name me just one socialist policy he has introduced.
Nope, not socialist. The private insurance companies are still heavily involved in it and all the facilities are privately owned (or at least not publicly owned).
That means little to nothing. Josak explains it by saying that there are different forms of socialism with varying degrees of government influence. Talk to Josak.
But there are no forms of socialism that are entirely capitalist.
Yeah, that's why he's proposing to cut Social Security and Medicare and why his Justice Department is so reluctant to bring criminal prosecutions against the banksters, and why Dodd Frank regulations still haven't been written.
Ralph,
He is a liberal. If you want to get into this, we can go there all day. Obama is a leftist liberal. You can find a few things that go in a more conservative direction, but I can find a lot more that go in a liberal direction.
Increased Taxes
Supports Distribution of Wealth
Obamacare
Entitlements, Entitlements, Entitlements
Stimulus Package
Repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
Supports Abortion
Expanded Stem-Cell Research
Assault Weapon Ban Supporter
Tax and Spend
Borrow and Spend
Print and Spend
He's at least a liberal democrat, and at worst, a socialist.Liberals consider Clinton, and W. Bush extensions of the age of Reagan. Progressives are bailing on him right and left at the moment on his offer to cut Social Security and Medicare, Guantanamo, drone strikes and failure to prosecute crooked bankers. Middle of the road economists criticize him because of the small size of his "package," stimulus that is and his failure to pursue global warming issues. He was quite late jumping on the marriage equality issue. Abortion is a personal liberty issue that has nothing to do with socialism. So far as "ObamaCare" is concerned, nearly every other advanced country has single payer government health care programs where as Obamacare left the door open for parasitic insurance companies that perform no necessary or useful function. Entitlements--as you know SS was established by FDR and Medicare and Medicaid by LBJ. It's doubtful that Obama would have gotten these programs enacted.
Obama isn't even a liberal Democrat, let alone a socialist.
Ralph,
Saying Obama is not a left-wing liberal is like calling Goldwater a moderate. Obama is definitely a leftist liberal. Check out his voting record when he was in Congress. His voting record was quite literally the most liberal, making even Ted Kennedy's look conservative. Seriously?
Let's look at Obamacare. IF that doesn't put him up with the most liberal presidents in American history, what does?Being the most liberal doesn't not make him a socialist, it doesn't even make him a liberal.
Being the most liberal doesn't even make him a liberal? WHAT? I'm pretty sure Josak won't even defend you for that one.
Would you say that everybody to the left of Thatcher was a socialist?
Serious question.I don't know, but I seriously doubt it. I've said, numerous times, that I do not know about Thatcher's politics. I do know what conservatives value, and I advocate that belief. I'm not here to add or detract from Thatcher's politics, though I do appreciate the one quote.
I do not believe that everybody to the left of Reagan was a socialist, so I doubt that is the case with Thatcher. I can't really speak about it, because I just don't follow UK politics.OK, fair enough, but you do realise that the Thatcher quote you so love is so wrong.
I know that you believe it is wrong. I'm a capitalist. As a capitalist, I tend to agree that socialism isn't as great as you'd like us to believe.
But it's only your perception of socialism that you don't like. I don't like your perceived socialism either. It's too much of a mish mash of soft capitalism, which is how Thatcher viewed it as well.
That's an interesting direction to take. Let's travel it a bit. Here's one of my biggest problems with socialism:
I do not believe governments are efficient. I do not wish to give more money in taxes. I feel I can spend my money more efficiently and with less corruption. . . I don't want to be told that I have to do certain things. . .such as own health insurance.Then turn to socialism for smaller government, lower taxes, less corruption and not being told what to buy.
Socialism doesn't equal any of those things, and you're delusional if you think it does. This conservative isn't going to help your cause.
"Even the mathematically challenged can see that 40% is a far cry from 75%."
http://www.taxanalysts.com/taxcom/taxbl … enDocument
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/opini … .html?_r=0OR we could look at real democratic socialist nations or Scandinavian social democracies and see they have lower tax rates on average.
Hell Australia is by your standard socialist and it not only has a lower tax rate but no inheritance tax.
John is correct ON AVERAGE that first world socialist systems have lower taxes not enormously so but still lower.
Taking the isolated example of France which only just elected a socialist government is blatantly dishonesty to make a false argument.
I will probably bother to do more in a while but I just glanced at the wikipedia nations by tax rates list, the US has a maximum 35% corporate rate and a maximum 39.6% individual rate, on the other hand Uruguay (the next country on the list) which has for more than a decade had a continuous elected actually socialist government has a tax rate of maximum 30% corporate and 25% individual.
So yes socialism does equal lower taxes.You seem to imply that I am happy with our current tax rates or that I think America is totally capitalist. I believe our tax rates are way too high. Comparing socialist nations to America is pointless when you're speaking to a conservative who believes that we are already taxing people to death and that we are quickly becoming socialist. By the way, I'm not happy with the tax rate under any president, republican or democrat. Going back and looking at Reagan's tax codes won't impress me either. We need to pay less in taxes and expect less from the government.
I'm happy to see that other nations tax their people less than America does. That doesn't really impress me though. All it does is illustrate what a failure our tax system is in America. It doesn't endear me to socialism. It reinforces my distrust of how our government spends our money and still has almost 17 trillion dollars in debt. Why would money to an inept group of bureaucrats?
France is socialism with a capitalist hat on. it is nothing like pure socialism.
. . .and it has the higest rated healthcare sytem. Maybe capitalism isn't as bad as you say.
That's my argument for America. We're a capitalist country with socialist tendencies, especially under FDR and the POTUS. I might even be able to include LBJ.
No, much like your argument, I am saying that America isn't entirely capitalistic, and thus, it is not a prime example of what capitalism can do. Now, if you want to look at how America was prior the New Deal, we can talk. There will be good and bad points, but at least you'll be looking at an America that was more capitalistic.
John,
I have said this over and over. Obamacare is a socialist tendency. Josak has even largely agreed to that point. For that matter, social security is socialistic too.Then I disagree with my learned friend Josak.
Which part of social security do you talk about? Remember many parts of social security were opposed by socialists in the UK.John, I think you're so far to the left you can't see what Americans consider socialism or at least liberal. It's true that our version of socialism or liberalism is tame for Europeans.
Tame or not, a lion doesn't become a tiger over the space of a few thousand miles!
You might well consider something you have to be socialist, but that doesn't make it so.
As I've said before socialism is more involved than just something you don't like - I know you hate Obama-care but that does not make it socialist.It's many steps closer to socialism. Deny that.
I do deny it! There is absolutely nothing socialist about it at all.
Nothing. I doubt you'll get many people to agree to that.
Education Answer, you are indeed an interesting sort. On the one hand, you appear to seek out cold, hard facts, I certainly appreciate that. Yet, on the other hand, you appear to just want to berate socialism without exploring all of the material at your disposal.
I'm confused now, you talk about Maggie and her fight against socialism, what she did for the UK etc. Yet, not once have you explored what Clement Attlee did for this country- he led an overtly socialist govt after the second world war, (just in case this was another part of our history with which you are unfamiliar) He was a socialist, a builder- he built from the ruins. Why do you not feel that this man's legacy is, not only pertinent, but a possible model for the future?I do not and have not defended Thatcher. I've said that over and over again. I have only defended conservative views. I have stated that I do not know enough about Thatcher's politics to speak about Thatcher. I speak about the differences among socialism, capitalism, liberalism, and conservatism.
Thatchers politics were hard line conservative and cruel. If you defend all conservatives on a thread about Thatcher, you defend Thatcher whether you intend to or not.
The fact remains, you have berated socialism over and and over again in this thread, without exploring where this ideology has had positive contributions- after all, this thread is about UK politics. May I take you back to that?
And if I may, I feel that this is an opportune moment to remind you (after all, you have decided that you wish to discuss UK politics, remember the title of this thread?) That being a liberal has a completely different connotation in the UK, then it does in the US. And, as we are discussing UK politics, not US, it is only proper and right that you familiarize yourselves with the differences, and approach this discussion accordingly.
There are many sources, of both theleft and right, where you can familiarize yourself with both current and historical debates in UK policy and politics. Give me a shout if you become stuck. I'll be happy to help.I actually agree with much of what you have said. Read my comments through this thread. I have repeatedly stated that I do not know much about Thatcher or UK politics. I have repeatedly spoken out about conservatism, and yes, I have spoken against socialism. As long as people keep engaging me about conservatism, I will continue to respond.
"I do not believe governments are efficient. I do not wish to give more money in taxes. I feel I can spend my money more efficiently and with less corruption."
Your belief often doesn't correspond to reality, e.g., in the case of health care. Most advanced countries have single-payer government health care insurance systems which deliver better results than our out-of-control system at a fraction of the cost. `You're assuming I want to spend any money on health insurance. "Better" is a matter of opinion though I'm sure somebody will bombard me with statistics extolling the benefits of socialized health systems.
By the way, if you plan on cutting doctor salaries, as Obamacare does, won't you also have to socialize our college system, not that it's not already partially socialized? Don't a lot of countries with socialized healthcare pay for doctors' education? Nobody can afford to go into medicine and pay for their education when they get paid so much less. Was it France where doctors get paid 60% less and have free education? Socialize healthcare, and it's a slippery slope.You have a incurable "narcissistic, lack of sense of community gene." Social Darwinism went out of favor in the western world long ago until Bonzo, Friedman, et al came along and revived it.
You can't be serious. This has to be an attempt at humor. Are you joking?
They become relatively poorer, that is a fact. They also got poorer under Thatcher, and we are poorer today under Cameron. I can't say with regards to the US, but every time social spending cuts are made and services cut, the poor are made poorer.
I don't know where you have the notion that I would support any Democrat leaders, they are all also right wing imperialists. Obama, Clinton, JFK, FDR, none are friends of the working class. But all of this is not really the matter at hand."relatively"
"right-wing imperialist"
Thanks. You make my point for me.
Are ther absolutely no left-wing imperialists left?Imperialism is anathema to left wing politics!
John, I think imperialism is anathema to most thinking and logical people. No one country should have hegemony over another country. Each country has a right to self-determination and autonomy.
What a lot of unthinking and illogical leaders both our countries have had in the near past
It's not really mining when it's on the surface. This is your response?
|You must remember that we can only view conservatives by their actions in our country. The fact that they may be just and fair in another country is absolutely no consolation to those who suffer at the hands of conservatives in this country.
The new post 1979 conservatives in the UK have no compunction about taking from those already suffering, even adding to the numbers suffering, and giving to the wealthy. Remember Thatcher's creed that those with plenty need more to motivate them while those with little needed less to motivate them!
The conservative party in the UK will shout that they are the party of low taxation whilst quietly increasing taxes. When Thatcher came to power tax collected was 38% of GDP. Within a few years it had risen to 42% and yet many rich had had their taxes cut. Where did this near 10% increase in tax collected come from?
Within days of getting into power Thatcher increased VAT from 8% to 15%. This latest Conservative government has increased it to 20%
Every Conservative government since 1979 has seen a massive rise in unemployment coupled with rises in taxation to pay for this unemployment.
As for helping poor people out of poverty, this current Thatcherite government has reduced benefits (many of the recipients are actually employed!) whilst cutting taxes on the wealthy.
The understanding of conservative ideals is spot on for the UK. Thatcher was supportive of US foreign policy to the detriment of her own country.
Many natural Conservatives fled to other parties or abstained when it came to voting. Fascists loved her though, are they natural conservatives?
Hitler was a fascist of course. He was also a socialist, being a member of the socialist workers party. Neither fascist, communists or Hitler believe or believed in democracy. The incumbent regime in Britain; the Lib Lab Cons are more akin to fascism than any we have had in our history being reluctant to ask the electorate their views on the future as they pursue their own agenda. Interestingly; thirty years ago, the Conservative Party satisfied 8 of the ten points of Marxism.
Anyway; legacy. Maggie saved Britain from economic ruin. Blair engineered it.Then why was Hitler incarcerating and killing socialists before he even started on the Jewish people?
Ignorance of history is a dangerous thing.
And how exactly did Blair engineer Britain's economic ruin? He embraced and continued Thatcher's policies.Hitler was a member of the socialist workers party. Fact.
Blair and Brown spent all the money that Maggie had accrued; the nations coffers had never been fuller since Elizabeth 1st pinched the gold that the Spaniards had pinched from the Incas. They spent the lot; borrowed more and spent that as well. They borrowed so much that our great grand children will still be paying it off; AND; they committed all future governments to continued expenditure to fund their insane socialist policies by use of Private Finance Initiatives (PFI's) which have a maturation period of 125 YEARS.
Take off your rose tinted John Holden. Socialism is a crime against humanity. 100,million dead trying to give the world a left wing make over during the twentieth century proves it.
Ignorance of history is indeed a dangerous thing.False, he was never a member of the SWP! The party he took over had the word "socialist" in it. That did not make Hitler a socialist any more than calling east German the democratic republic made it either democratic on a republic.
The socialist workers party wasn't founded until 1950, long after Hitler's death, and wasn't known as the SWP until 1977!
Thatcher sold off our North sea oil reserves and used the money to buy votes. Blair and Brown continued with Thatchers policies.
PFI's were fist used in the UK by John Major's conservative government.
And where exactly did socialism lead to 100 million deaths?http://history.howstuffworks.com/world- … -party.htm
Extermination toll in Germany is now estimated at 40 million, not 6. Russia under Stalin around 55 million. Pol Pot 2 million, Chinese cultural revolution and purges unknown but certainly millions. Communism, socialism, fascism. Just variations on a theme. All left wing, all totalitarian, all murderous.
John Major was socialist in sheeps clothing.And that totally insane comment ends any possibility of further meaningful discussion.
Oh come on; I'm just getting started.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … urope.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … study.htmlI don't doubt any of that.
None of it however proves that Hitler was a socialist.
I was actually going to say that I'd been taught something. Whoa! China and N. Korea were socialist countries and not communist countries, but then, thought I'd be met with the very boring *socialism leads to communism* argument, and couldn't be bothered. Thought it might be better to put the debate on the footing of the things that Thatcher did, they weren't positive.
LOL. Have you seen this? Thatcher's legacy: https://twitter.com/KarmaUnc/status/323 … 48/photo/1
How sad to celebrate the death of a human being. She was a wife, mother, daughter, sister. Whatever her politics, at her age, she was no longer a threat to the people who hated her politics.
I'm not able to reply directly to "It's not really mining when it's on the surface. This is your response?", so here goes.
What you have done is pick a comment out of context, and chose to ignore the sentences that followed. For while I did say relatively poor, i also gave examples of being made literally poorer under Thatcher and Cameron, but you chose to ignore that. As for your point on imperialism, I'm not even sure what the point is you are trying to make. I said the Democrat leaders have been both imperialist and right wing, it's hardly controversial.You say the same things over and over. You must use the word "imperialist" at least every twentieth word.
No response is necessary. You've said enough. Anybody can go look at what you said about North Korea. That, too, speaks volumes.So your point is you have no point. Got it.
My point is that you do not know what you are talking about. Would you like to start discussing North Korea again? I've asked four times now. If not, that's your point. . .run away when you know you have lost.
What does North Korea have to do with Maggie Thatcher, seriously. And you talk about running away.
I'm not saying the two are connected, though they are connected when you look at Thatcher's stance against both socialism and communism. I want to know why you won't return to the North Korea forum. Seems like you are avoiding the issue.
Or her stance on the Apartheid government and Pinochet who was convicted of mass exterminations and genocide. As in supporting them.
Frankly it seems a good reason to like any governmental system she did not.Frankly, it does not seem like a good idea to like any government she did not like. She didn't support the Soviet Union either. Shall we talk about its crimes against humanity?
Nearly all civilized, democratic countries opposed apartheid and Pinochet who became president as a result of a coup condoned by the CIA and assisted by IT&T.
I'm not disagreeing with that, and I'm not supporting Thatcher's decision not to push for sanctions. All I am saying is that you can't merely "like" all of the countries Thatcher did not trust or support. That makes no sense, none at all.
Seeing as how this is a thread about Thatcher, why don't we talk about her crimes against humanity. If you like we could expand it to cover her friends, like Pinochet and Pol Pot, but if that makes you too uncomfortable we can stick with Thatcher.
Upwards of three million people unemployed many for life.
A lot of suicides.
Children plunged into poverty.
The destruction of whole communities.No words come to mind to express my disgust that you equate that with crimes against humanity.
What are they then if not crimes against humanity?
Just because they didn't involve mass executions and extermination camps does not make them any less a crime for the victims.Are you describing Obama? Those same problems are associated with the POTUS, except the numbers are worse with him. Even I don't consider that crimes against humanity.
What then do you consider to be a crime against humanity?
I do not consider being a bad president and having bad economic numbers a crime against humanity. If that were the case, half of all the politicians in the world would fit into this category. I consider butchers, like Hitler and Stalin to fit into this category.
Our POTUS has horrible economic numbers. Would you set up a trial for him? Let's get serious. I don't like our president's politics, but this is ridiculous.Peoples lives are not economic numbers!
I'm talking about lives lost and destroyed.Are we not communicating? You, at one point, seemed to be saying that because the economy was bad, Thatcher had committed crimes against humanity. Wasn't that your argument? If not, then we're not even talking about the same thing.
Nope, never even suggested that Thatchers crimes against humanity were anything to do with the economy, well no further than suggesting that plunging over three million people into poverty, whilst enriching a few thousand, was a crime against humanity, but I don't think that was what you referred to.
In America, we have the largest number of people in poverty, ever. What would that say about the POTUS? Do you have compassion for all those people who have suffered under his leadership? I don't consider this a crime. I consider it poor leadership.
I don't know, why are those people in poverty? Is it as a deliberate move by the President and has he ever declared that it is a price worth paying?
Has he ever set the police on people fighting to keep their jobs?
The death of the ten hunger strikers including a member of parliament, internment without trial, sinking the Belgrano.
Ten people went on a hunger strike and died? Without fail those who do not eat, die! How could that possibly be the fault of anyone but themselves?
Why exactly would I be concerned for those who kill themselves by starvation?
Maybe if you could imagine why somebody should kill themselves you'd be a more understanding and compassionate person.
And there it is, the compassion card. Often played, it is a mainstay of the liberal and the socialist.
Are you suggesting that those on the right are without compassion?
Of course he's saying it. That's what so many liberals and socialsts like to say. We should start talking about compassionate, emotional liberals who get frantic and make stupid decisions out of haste and hysterics.
"Passion governs, and she never governs wisely."
Ben FranklinPassion and compassion, though appearing similar, have entirely different meanings.
Yeah, I get that. I was referring to the common, liberal tendency to be frantic and emotionally jump to name calling. That's where your (liberal) passion for compassion governs unwisely. WE all have passion for the things that are important in our lives. I, too, am passionate about making sure people do not lose freedom, but it seems, from a conservative viewpoint, that liberals passionately defend themselves with screams of compassion and racism. It gets old and tiresome.
Er, what!
Do you really think you are so much better than me?What, exactly, is freedom to you, Education Answer?
Hollie,
Freedom is not having your own country run drones over you in an effort to watch over its own population. That’s Big Brother.
Freedom is not having your own country put its own citizens on a kill list.
Freedom is not having your own country listen to your calls and read your emails in the name of homeland security. Yes, I know the Patriot Act started under Bush. I was against it then, and I’m against it now.
Freedom is not being told you must have Obamacare or some other health insurance. Freedom is not being fined for failing to have insurance.
Freedom is not being told that you can’t go to McDonald’s and purchase a soda that is in excess of 16 ounces. Yes, I know that the courts have overturned this law.
Freedom is not being told that you must limit your gun’s magazine to no more than seven rounds. Yes, I know that this is in New York only, but that will likely begin to change. It’s also being pushed in other areas. At least, I can take solace in the fact that states have had the ability to decide. . .so far.
Freedom is not having the government take more of your money than you get. Yes, by the time I pay all my taxes, from federal to air quality, I take home less than half of my money. We pay well over a hundred taxes. That’s not freedom.
I could keep going.
Oh, ok, so passion and compassion have the same meaning?
Hollie,
That's not what I'm suggesting. I have been clear.
Maybe the world would be a better and safer place if the right also used it as a mainstay.
Compassion without reason is not any better.
Who said there was no reason for my compassion?
You call conservatives uncompassionate, and that shows little reasoning. That's just something from the typical, liberal playbook.
No, you poured scorn on the idea of compassion, I therefore assumed that compassion was a dirty word in your book.
I do actually know some very compassionate conservatives, misguided, but full of compassion.I have no problem with compassion. Compassion is important. I do not believe that compassion is reserved for liberals only. Liberals like to say that conservatives do not have compassion. I believe that this same “compassion” often leads to hasty decisions without data and reasoning. I'll relate guns as an example. In the name of compassion, liberals want to ban certain kinds of guns. When conservatives try to say that it won’t work, we’re called murderers. We’re called uncompassionate. That’s what I am saying.
But we're not saying that as a conservative you've confused passion with compassion. We're merely asking why as an individual you have confused passion with compassion. You've yet to answer.
Hollie,
Do you read all the comments? I've answered. This is getting tedious. Liberals often get passionate about being compassionate. When they do so, they often make stupid decisions in a frantic, emotional attempt to solve something. When I spoke about it, I gave gun control as an example. Again, do you read what people write? If you disagree, that's one thing, but I have responded.
Read some history books and you will understand. And you ignore her other crimes. It has been noted.
Why? It still won't be crimes against humanity.
Tell me then, what is a crime against humanity?
You may want to look into the type of people you align with for the explanation.
What! People who campaign against war, against crimes against humanity, disarmament, what sort of people!
. . .and both your country and mine allied with Stalin during World War II. Stalin was a butcher. We can go down this road for quite some time.
I am avoiding the issue? That seems a bit rich when you are attempting to turn what had become a discussion about conservative beliefs and how I showed conservatives make the poor poorer, into a discussion about North Korea. All of this emerged out of your picking out one or two words from my comments and ignoring the rest. Clearly then, it is not me avoiding the issue.
“Socialism is simply Communism for people without the testosterone to man the barricades."
Gary North - Economic Historian
“Socialism is the same as Communism, only better English”
George Bernard Shaw - Playwright and Co-Founder of the London School of EconomicsThat is so offensive to all the socialists who've died fighting fascists across the world.
Is that the best you can do? A rather eccentric Irish play-write who died more than half a century ago!LOL
There's no shortage in quotes. What would be the point? By the way, he wasn't just a playwright. A little research might help you make intelligent comments.And a little research would enable you to make intelligent comments about socialism. Touché.
I suspect I know far more about GB Shaw than you have ever known.
BTW, would that be the same Gary North who famously predicted global melt down when Y2K hit and had to furiously back pedal when any thing failed to happen?
I'm sure the rest of his knowledge is just as accurate.Ah, you did a little research.
. . .or was it the same one who warned us and provided enough response time to make sure it didn't happen? There was no meltdown. Billions were spent to make sure that wouldn't happen. You can't say that it wouldn't have happened had we not spent the money to upgrade our computers and prepare for this potential. You can only say it didn't happen. We'll never really know what would have happened had there not been an investment to prepare for the potential collapse.Funny, we've never heard of him in the UK but still we had scares all over.
I didn't spend one penny upgrading my computer but the date still clicked over at midnight and my computer kept working.
The software house that I was associated with were totally unconcerned as well.
And if he really was the saviour of the world why was he so quick to remove all traces of his comments from his site?
None of this changes the offensiveness of his comments one bit.Do you want to try to disprove credibility on all my sources? If that's your tactic, good luck.
No, only the sources with no credibility. You quoted a man saying essentially that socialists had no fight in them. Even a little knowledge would show this to be absurd.
If you really don't believe me google Franco and socialists and learn about all the socialists who weren't Spanish and yet went to Spain, and died, to fight fascism.
I appreciate Thatcher irrespective of her politics.
We need more decisive democratic leaders. The politics of the affluent democracies are so polarized that most leaders come across as wimps, unwilling or unable to move policies.
I look back at Thatcher with nostalgia.There was nothing democratic about Thatchers rule.
John,
You’re right. I can do better.
“To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukaemia with leeches.”
Margaret Thatcher
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Winston Churchill
"To tax the community for the advantage of a class is not protection, it is plunder."
Benjamin Disraeli
I could keep going, but what's the point? I do like the Thatcher quote, and now I know why you hate her so much; she didn't like your ilk, socialists.What is the point in a string of quotes from avowed anti - socialists?
Other than to perhaps prove that if they did understand socialism, it scared the what's its out of them, fearing that they would lose the opportunity to keep screwing the workers!That's the problem. You assume people don't understand it just because they don't agree with it.
No, I assume nothing. The fact is that by their words they show that they don't understand socialism.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago
0It seems to me that people love to hate a civic reformer ! And that reformer pulled England from the brink of following eastern Europe down the tubes . And yet ..........here it is today being slowly flushed ! Good luck to the P.C. liberal crowd ! Bye , Bye .
Yes, and it's another conservative who is helping us on our way down the tubes.
John I would sooner think your culture is headed down hill because of those who would rather promote socialistic entitlements . Not the one who was at least slowing that pace ! But hey you've won the race , now who's gonna pay for your entitlements ?
What entitlements would they be? The insurance we pay to protect us from hardship (that's a laugh) universal health care, the privilege of not being wanted by an employer?
What entitlements do you mean?
And how is putting more and more people out of work slowing the pace?ahorseback, if we're getting back to the topic of this thread, it's about Thatcher and why her death is celebrated in some sectors. None of this is about entitlements. This woman asset stripped the UK, she created untold misery for people who just wanted to work, support their families and live a reasonable life- she stripped many ordinary people of those opportunities, and their families.
In the UK, I know, I know, this is a scenario which is more difficult for you to relate to because you weren't there and didn't experience the things that we did- she professed that she was of the small government sort, yet proceeded to expand govt (such as the police, security services and their powers) whilst raping the tax payer of their rights to the services which they'd payed for. And I don't mean benefits.
If we look back to the Miners' strike, you'll see that the slogan was 'Coal, not dole' The miners, steelworkers, dockers and more were not fighting for benefits, they were not fighting for a pay rise, or more entitlements, but just their jobs. Thatcher's response was "unemployment is a price worth paying"
Do some research, it was Thatcher that was pro-entitlements. She believed that skilled men and woman should be unemployed whilst she enriched her neo-liberal friends. Ordinary people fought the benefit culture, Thatcher endorsed it.And there was me thinking that millions of people were so happy to have Thatcher in power that they voluntarily gave up their jobs and went on the dole!
"Why? It still won't be crimes against humanity."
Then it is evident you do not know what the term means, the belgrano = a war crime, the hunger strikers were victim of torture and internment meant people were arrested indefinitely without trial, and lets add in the arming and training of loyalist death squads which made religous and ethnic based murder campaigns, yet another crime against humanity.If Thatcher had been the head of a supposedly socialist/communist country we would never hear the end of the howls of outrage but being "one of them" they will steadfastly refuse to see any wrong in her actions.
Forget that she aligned herself with some of the worlds worst tyrants, that doesn't count.Comrade Joe,
This is bordering on insanity. You have the nerve to adamantly defent North Korea and say it doesn't mistreat its people in one forum and then turn around and attack Thatcher in another. Whether or not Thatcher was horrible, you have no credibility when it comes to discussing regimes that have crimes against humanity.
NONE.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
Why do liberals find it so hard to understand the irony of any goverment "saving us " by creating
" paper jobs" , More government created jobs are like a balloon with a hole on both ends ! You cant fill it and it leaks more cost than it generates revenue {income ]....It is the capitolists created jobs that creat successful economies . AND there there are too few vibrant economies to support the rest !ahorseback, if they don't create jobs they are creating welfare. I thought you were opposed to welfare? Did I get this wrong, are you in favour of welfare and entitlements, after all?
By American standards, would Thatcher have been a liberal? I'm doing my research, and I have to say that it doesn't seem that her ideals, in many different areas, are those of what would be considered conservative here in America. It's just an observation. I don't claim to know all the intricacies of UK politics, but as an American, I wouldn't consider Thatcher to be a conservative based on what I'm seeing.
It seems some would agree.
"The most interesting review of Thatcher's reign -- other than yours, Ramesh! -- came, surprisingly, from Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC. By prevailing American standards, O'Donnell noted, Thatcher was a raging leftie, with a tax rate of 60 percent for most of her term, her belief in universal health care, and her embrace of evolution and global warming. What's more, she told her citizens that to avert climate change, those in developed countries were just going to have to pay more than those in undeveloped countries."
This isn't conservative by American standards.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-1 … ative.htmlThe only problem with that is that few had a tax rate of anything like 60%, and they where the ones least likely to afford it. Her belief in universal health care was that it should be privatised, she just realised that to do that openly would be political suicide both for her and the conservative party.
Her opinion of global warming was that it was a leftist plot to take over the world, hersupposed support for it was a tool with which to beat the British miners.
This is not opinion, this is fact.Here's a very solid piece that seems to agree with both of us. On one hand, it says Thatcher wasn't a conservative or at least a successful conservative. On the other, it says she had some serious policy issues. I know you won't like the tone, because it is a conservative site. Still, if you read the article, I think you might find it interesting.
"I still cannot resist the feeling that her reputation is not just inflated but damaging to the conservative cause."
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ … -thatcher/Thanks for that EA, I found it a generally balanced article with little bias or prejudice showing through.
I was particularly taken by a comment in our local paper today - "A great leader unites, not divides"
Related Discussions
- 17
Why Did Hitler Hate The Jews?
by Intellikid 8 years ago
Why Did Hitler Hate The Jews?I was recently reading 'Diary of a young girl - Anne Frank' and I've seen movies like 'The Pianist', 'Hitler - The Rise of Evil', 'The Boy in striped Pajamas', but for the life of me I just can't get it. What was it about Jews that Hitler hated so much? And if it was...
- 23
Should I just accept that my husband won't vote?
by Peeples 12 years ago
Should I just accept that my husband won't vote?I almost never disagree with my husband. However he has the "No need to vote when they're all the same" mentality. I am really wanting him to vote or at least learn the issues because we will be moving to a new tax bracket soon and I believe...
- 3
Who are THE MOST HATED, REVILED leaders in history?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 8 years ago
Who are THE MOST HATED, REVILED leaders in history?
- 6
Is Hitler dead?
by Zubyre Parvez 13 years ago
Is Hitler dead?
- 18
LDS baptised for Hitler
by passingtheword 13 years ago
Did you know that the LDS Church baptized for Hitler in an attempt (or opportunity) to give him eternal life with God. it just saids something about the LDS Church. "Current IGI TM Addendum temple ordinance entries for Mr. [Adolf] Hiedler (Hitler) show that Hitler was...
- 13
Why is it we never forget our first love even if there was never even so much as
by Jackie Lynnley 10 years ago
Why is it we never forget our first love even if there was never even so much as a kiss?This seems to be true for everyone and I would think the second love would wipe out the memory of the first. Is this true or just my imagination?