|
On April 09 2013 22:22 Hitch-22 wrote:
Look no further then Kwark to see how one should discuss a topic.
So what you're saying is its better to add no substance because people won't read it and a few lines of non-substance is better? That's what I got from your last part.
Kwark, the one whose posts drip with spiteful, nerdballing nastiness and pseudo-intellectual faux-moderacy? The one who presents easily addressed fallacies on stilts as if they're confounding rebuttals of other people's posts? That's how to argue?
Unemployment under Thatcher averaged 9.1%, compared with around 2% in the 70s. Why are we even having this discussion?
|
On April 09 2013 22:22 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 22:00 Iyerbeth wrote:On April 09 2013 21:47 Hitch-22 wrote:
I fear this discussion has done me more good then most of you for now I'll shine a different light on the community and expect much less in dialogue and pouch for the few who can make a standing argument against Thatcher without falling to hyperbolic statements and grand gestures of inflaming idiotic assertions backed by sub-par (if any) sources. Are you suggesting those making arguements for her have done any differently? I could absolutely write a critique of her politics were it worth the time, but I imagine most people here really interested in the debate enough to read it will already have known what I were to say, before I say it. Look no further then Kwark to see how one should discuss a topic. So what you're saying is its better to add no substance because people won't read it and a few lines of non-substance is better? That's what I got from your last part.
That isn't what I meant, but reading it back I can see what you mean so I'l rephrase it.
Kwark is a good example, and I already had a discussion with him on the subject of society and Thatcher earlier in this thread. I'll put in spoilers here, though I'm not expecting you to read it.
+ Show Spoiler +On April 09 2013 03:02 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:48 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 02:39 Iyerbeth wrote:On April 09 2013 02:30 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 02:24 Iyerbeth wrote:On April 09 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 02:10 Rossie wrote:
A toxic, inhumane woman whose world view was typified by the statement: "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."
Everything that went wrong with the UK (housing crisis, banking crisis, lopsided dependence on the City, de-industrial revolution and the stricken communities created by it) was the direct result of her policies.
The only good thing I can say about her is that David Cameron is twice as evil. Taken out of context as you would know if you'd looked into her history and politics at all before repeating such a often misquoted statement. Here it is in full "They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation" What it means is that saying that something is "society's problem" or an obligation of society doesn't mean anything because society isn't a real person who can come in and fix everything for us. It's made up of individual men and women. You should take your meaningless, superficial and ultimately idiotic critique back to youtube comments where they belong. I think it's somewhat misleading to suggest that that is the quote in full there.
What is wrong with the deterioration? I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—“It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”. That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look” It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!”
And you don't agree that there is a disconnect in the mind of the people between demanding that their neighbour subsidise their income when they want a government grant and putting the burden on 'society'? Because I think there is. I think things would be an awful lot better if there was a genuine awareness of people that while we have this safety net in place, and we should have it, it is paid for by individuals and families. When you go on the dole there is a family that might be scraping by that is being forced to add your expenses into their weekly budget because you are telling society that you cannot support yourself. When people take money from the state they don't think about it in those terms because the idea that society is a person who is very rich and has money to spare is much more comforting. But it's not true, society doesn't exist, when you become a burden on society you are becoming a burden on real people and on real families. I absolutely agree that people need to be aware of the cost to real people, I certainly wouldn't argue otherwise. My issue with her statement that there is no such thing as society was that she was specifically dismissing the concerns of real people, many of who she was actively causing severe disruption to (severe enough that its effects are still apparent today) for an ideological class war. She specifically disliked the idea of everyone in it together, which is why she was dismissing society. Her concern, even in the quote, isn't deteriation of society, isn't that work should pay decently, that housing should be built and available (see: Liverpool especially) or even a concern for people in general. Her statement that society doesn't exist really is an attack on society, in favour of personal greed. She merely obfuscates it well behind her language, the message is unmistakable. I agree that she was ideologically motivated but you cannot divorce her from the context in which she operated in. Class war was upon her and the country was falling apart. The post war economic consensus had led to a lack of investment in British industry, complacency, British products becoming uncompetitive on the world market and increasingly large sectors of money losing business becoming part of the public sector until eventually the state became literally bankrupt. The working class fired the first salvo in the impending class war when they brought the country to its knees with strikes at the suggestion that the state could not afford to subsidise their lifestyles forever when their produce was worth less than their pay. Heath fell to the working class attacks and Thatcher rose to take the fight back at them, a fight which was subsequently won and saw a significant increase in the standard of living of the general population compared to that which would have been had the class war been lost. Again, context defines her actions. I would again agree that her actions must be considered in context, but I hadn't begun to explain why I think she was wrong on everything else she said and did. I was merely hoping to point out that quoting the "there is no such thing as society" line is absolutely quoting her within context, she really did mean to say that looking out for one's self was the important bit, not working to prevent the deterioration of society. I think your first response to that, where you had expanded the quote to a more pleasant light, was what was missing the context with that line. She absolutely should be remembered as the prime minister who said there is no such thing as society. Her policies though, when taken in context, were still those of a prime minister actively attempting to divide the country. That is never a good leader, and as such it's hardly surprising that the majority of those she specifically attacked will remember her with hatred. It is also, I think, unfair to presume that had she not won (and what a devestating victory it was) that everything would have collapsed and failed. The alternative wasn't to do nothing. I would be surprised if any alternative could have done quite so much damage the UK as she was able to.
What I had meant by my previous post was that, the facts are known, the sides are picked and the effects have been seen. The only things left to debate is the rightness or wrongness of her actions, and the motivations behind them and the politics of today in accordance with the effects, which is basically what has been occuring. When there is something such as the no society quote I discussed with kwark then sure we can have a more weighty discussion, but for the most part we're talking about stuff that happened 30 years ago. There is literally nothing I could write that everyone who would take the time to read doesn't already know or hasn't already heard/read. Those who still support her have done nothing different to those opposed to her in this thread (except in their immediate response to her death) because there is nothing new they can really write about either.
I have been keeping an eye on the thread for any statement were more than a superficial response might be valuable, but such statements just don't happen anymore on this topic.
|
On April 09 2013 21:47 Hitch-22 wrote:
I fear this discussion has done me more good then most of you for now I'll shine a different light on the community and expect much less in dialogue and pouch for the few who can make a standing argument against Thatcher without falling to hyperbolic statements and grand gestures of inflaming idiotic assertions backed by sub-par (if any) sources. What sources are needed? You can verify with an elementary Google search that unemployment averaged about 9% in the Thatcher years, compared with about 2% in the 70s.
If you're going to claim that someone whose regime had such an effect on unemployment figures, then the burden of proof falls squarely on you. Sadly, nobody has proved equal to the task. All they can do is point to obscurantist, monetarist figures whose correlation with standard of living is widely disputed by social scientists.
|
Northern Ireland26336 Posts
On April 09 2013 22:40 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 22:22 Hitch-22 wrote:
Look no further then Kwark to see how one should discuss a topic.
So what you're saying is its better to add no substance because people won't read it and a few lines of non-substance is better? That's what I got from your last part.
Kwark, the one whose posts drip with spiteful, nerdballing nastiness and pseudo-intellectual faux-moderacy? The one who presents easily addressed fallacies on stilts as if they're confounding rebuttals of other people's posts? That's how to argue? Unemployment under Thatcher averaged 9.1%, compared with around 2% in the 70s. Why are we even having this discussion?
Judging from his posting I disagree with close to every one of the ideological positions that Kwark holds. I still find his posting eminently readable, and it adds something to the discussion. Yours just smacks of constant antagonism and throwing as many verbose insults around as you can.
|
On April 09 2013 22:40 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 22:22 Hitch-22 wrote:
Look no further then Kwark to see how one should discuss a topic.
So what you're saying is its better to add no substance because people won't read it and a few lines of non-substance is better? That's what I got from your last part.
Kwark, the one whose posts drip with spiteful, nerdballing nastiness and pseudo-intellectual faux-moderacy? The one who presents easily addressed fallacies on stilts as if they're confounding rebuttals of other people's posts? That's how to argue? Unemployment under Thatcher averaged 9.1%, compared with around 2% in the 70s. Why are we even having this discussion?
Unemployment sky rocketed under Obama verses George Bush, both opposite ends of the spectrum but are analogous on the vice verse, would this be a solid reasoning platform to dictate that Bush handled US policy more effectively and better then Obama and it all falls on Obama for the mistakes? It may be the case that while you make facetious statements regarding Kwark you're falling through the same cracks by bringing a statistics that has no substance and takes nothing into account.
Thatcher walked into an economy that was dive bombing, 9.1 is beyond impressive as well as the average income for lower-middle class did raise per capita over the 70's. Did the gap between rich and poor get wider? Yes, but is it not true the gap between the poor and the poor in terms of time also widened? Did they not get wealthier?
|
On April 09 2013 22:48 Wombat_NI wrote:
Judging from his posting I disagree with close to every one of the ideological positions that Kwark holds. I still find his posting eminently readable, and it adds something to the discussion. Yours just smacks of constant antagonism and throwing as many verbose insults around as you can. His posts are just circumlocutious, pseudo-intellectual faux-moderacy all the way through. Mine get right to the heart of the matter...for instance, by highlighting the contrast between unemployment under Thatcher and in the 70s.
It's the easiest thing in the world to take an absurd claim and its negation and then pretend that the most reasonable and sophisticated position is the middle ground. Maybe the Earth is 7,000 years old and maybe it isn't. The truth must lie somewhere in between, and I'm sure someone could write eminently readable, "moderate" posts about that subject to add something to the discussion.
As for insults...he's the one who began the insults by accusing me of being an idiot for quoting Thatcher "without context". (And despite his bluster, it turns out that the "context" doesn't add anything.)
|
On April 09 2013 22:55 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 22:48 Wombat_NI wrote:
Judging from his posting I disagree with close to every one of the ideological positions that Kwark holds. I still find his posting eminently readable, and it adds something to the discussion. Yours just smacks of constant antagonism and throwing as many verbose insults around as you can. His posts are just circumlocutious, pseudo-intellectual faux-moderacy. Mine get right to the heart of the matter...for instance, highlighting the contrast between unemployment under Thatcher and in the 70s. It's the easiest thing in the world to take an absurd claim and its negation and then pretend that the most reasonable and sophisticated position is the middle ground. Maybe the Earth is 7,000 years old and maybe it isn't. The truth must lie somewhere in between, and I'm sure someone could write eminently readable, "moderate" posts about that subject to add something to the discussion.
So you do agree then George Bush's policies must be much better then Obama since unemployment dramatically increased under (about double for long-time employment) Obama. This isn't something I believe but you seem to think that must be a key indicator.
You keep throwing offensive claims and then dare say yours get to the 'heart of the matter' while taking nothing into account but a single statistic that is common with any economic downturn.
|
Northern Ireland26336 Posts
Ah fuck it. Such is internet discussion, it degenerates to 'he who shouts loudest' in most cases.
|
On April 09 2013 22:59 Hitch-22 wrote:
So you do agree then George Bush's policies must be much better then Obama since unemployment dramatically increased under (about double for long-time employment) Obama. This isn't something I believe but you seem to think that must be a key indicator. It was 7.8% when he got in, it's 7.7% now. And that's despite taking the helm in the midst of a world financial crisis.
It's not even remotely comparable to Thatcher. Stop watching Fox.
|
Northern Ireland26336 Posts
On April 09 2013 23:06 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 22:59 Hitch-22 wrote:
So you do agree then George Bush's policies must be much better then Obama since unemployment dramatically increased under (about double for long-time employment) Obama. This isn't something I believe but you seem to think that must be a key indicator. It was 7.8% when he got in, it's 7.7% now. And that's despite taking the helm in the midst of a world financial crisis. It's not even remotely comparable to Thatcher. Stop watching Fox.
Again with the sniping whenever somebody disagrees with you. You used to getting indulged by your nearest and dearest most of the time or what?
|
On April 09 2013 23:00 Wombat_NI wrote:
Ah fuck it. Such is internet discussion, it degenerates to 'he who shouts loudest' in most cases. Funny. I got insulted by Kwark after my first post in this thread. I return the favour to some extent, and you act as if I'm out of order.
On April 09 2013 23:09 Wombat_NI wrote:
Again with the sniping whenever somebody disagrees with you. You used to getting indulged by your nearest and dearest most of the time or what? Ditto. This guy basically accused the anti-Thatcher camp of being uninformed idiots. You remain conspicuously silent about those particular sniper rifle rounds.
|
Northern Ireland26336 Posts
Only because you seem to be running a competition with yourself for longest-unnecessary-hyphenated-insult-containing-words-like-pseudo-and-faux
|
On April 09 2013 23:11 Wombat_NI wrote:
Only because you seem to be running a competition with yourself for longest-unnecessary-hyphenated-insult-containing-words-like-pseudo-and-faux I actually had one of those insults.
Give it a fucking rest. It's not always true that the middle ground is most moral and most sophisticated.
|
Northern Ireland26336 Posts
Apologies for the derail and singling you out.
|
On April 09 2013 21:29 Aristodemus wrote:
The economy was rotting, the unions were way too powerful and she took the decisions that led to recovery. On April 09 2013 22:40 Rossie wrote:
Unemployment under Thatcher averaged 9.1%, compared with around 2% in the 70s. Why are we even having this discussion?
I think you have to first ask for your definition of 'economic recovery' before you come to the conclusion.
If you measure by unemploiment rate than she has done a horrible horrible job.
But if you talk about inflation, you could argue that for people with savings and home owners there was indeed a great recovery.
|
On April 10 2013 00:12 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 21:29 Aristodemus wrote:
The economy was rotting, the unions were way too powerful and she took the decisions that led to recovery. Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 22:40 Rossie wrote:
Unemployment under Thatcher averaged 9.1%, compared with around 2% in the 70s. Why are we even having this discussion? I think you have to first ask for your definition of 'economic recovery' before you come to the conclusion. If you measure by unemploiment rate than she has done a horrible horrible job. But if you talk about inflation, you could argue that for people with savings and home owners there was indeed a great recovery.
The policies she enacted relating to inflation were among the most damaging to the country's industrial sector, though. They caused wide spread unemployment and were viciously opposed even within the conservative party.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 09 2013 22:48 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 21:47 Hitch-22 wrote:
I fear this discussion has done me more good then most of you for now I'll shine a different light on the community and expect much less in dialogue and pouch for the few who can make a standing argument against Thatcher without falling to hyperbolic statements and grand gestures of inflaming idiotic assertions backed by sub-par (if any) sources. What sources are needed? You can verify with an elementary Google search that unemployment averaged about 9% in the Thatcher years, compared with about 2% in the 70s. If you're going to claim that someone whose regime had such an effect on unemployment figures, then the burden of proof falls squarely on you. Sadly, nobody has proved equal to the task. All they can do is point to obscurantist, monetarist figures whose correlation with standard of living is widely disputed by social scientists.
"Compared to about 2% in the 1970s" - oh how you like to twist them stats. Unemployment was rising rapidly in the 2nd half of the 1970s. Nevertheless, to have a fair discussion, we can say this:
1) Unemployment rose markedly during the first half of the Thatcher years. In the 2nd half of the 80s, it dropped considerably, and by the time she was ousted from power wasn't very far above 1979 levels at all.
2) Inflation was running rampant when Thatcher came to power, running in double figures, 11-14% in 1979-80; under her administration inflation was drastically curbed to low-mid single figure numbers.
Thatcher inherited a nation that had to grovel to the IMF in the 70s because it couldn't pay its workers. What good, pray tell, is lower unemployment when the state literally cannot pay the wages of those it employs? That's not real employment. She also came to power following the Winter of Discontent, something that previous administrations (both tory and labour) had not been able to prevent; unions held the country to ransome over energy, rubbish was rotting in the streets, unions demanded pay for workers that the country could not afford.
And what of the miners and the strikes? The mining union headed by Scargill - its members repeatedly turned down strike action in the early 80s; it was only when Scargill forced strikes *without a ballot* that Thatcher 'went to war' with the unions. Most of the coal mines that were closed were loss-making entities, being subsidised by the state (and by the state, I mean private workers who are giving THEIR money to subsidise these things).
Were there disasters? Sure. The Poll Tax was disastrous. Probably she took too heavy a hand in how she went about closing the mines, probably not enough was done to try to revitalise these areas. I'm sure there's other things here that people have banged on about that were questionable too.
But yes, the argument here is with you and your biased metrics. Of course unemployment was lower in the 1970s because the country *quite literally* bankrupted itself paying workers on the state payroll. The country bankrupted itself because wage increase demands from the unions were running at 10% per year. Simply enough, unemployment HAD to rise because the state could no longer afford to pay all the workers it was employing. It was a natural correction to the country's course that previous governments didn't have the balls to make, but at some point was inevitable.
|
as a brit and 32 years old i can only say, she had the right idea of if you make a £1 you cant spend £1.01. lived by this most of my life.
|
Horrible person, total lack of any kind of humanity, disastrous leader. I would say good riddance, but unfortunately, we didn't get rid of Tatcherism, and we won't for a long time.
I'll quote Ken Loach:
"Margaret Thatcher was the most divisive and destructive Prime Minister of modern times.
Mass Unemployment, factory closures, communities destroyed – this is her legacy. She was a fighter and her enemy was the British working class. Her victories were aided by the politically corrupt leaders of the Labour Party and of many Trades Unions. It is because of policies begun by her that we are in this mess today.
Other prime ministers have followed her path, notably Tony Blair. She was the organ grinder, he was the monkey.
Remember she called Mandela a terrorist and took tea with the torturer and murderer Pinochet.
How should we honour her? Let’s privatise her funeral. Put it out to competitive tender and accept the cheapest bid. It’s what she would have wanted."
|
On April 10 2013 00:40 marvellosity wrote:
Most of the coal mines that were closed were loss-making entities, being subsidised by the state.
While much of what you say I find a bit skewed, this quote makes me laugh, for it seems you actually think 'mines made a loss so one HAD to close them down'.
I have some news for you: Nearly every big business in this world relies on subsidies!
The whole agriculture sector in the US and Europe for example would collapse without subsidies. Nuclear power plants would literally close tomorrow if the state would not aid them. Not a single widebody aircraft in this world is build without massive state sponsorship!
In our world every political decisions is ultimately made through subsidies, whether it is for example to invest in green energy or coal, whether is supporting mine workers or aiding home owners.
Whether to rescue a bank or file insolvency for a factory, is never decided by an accountant objectively comparing profitability, it is decided by a politician.
Germany for example kept a lot of it's mines open for decades longer, ever though they were just as loss-making as British one's. It was and is always a political choice!
Ignoring that truth and quoting superficial reasons for what 'had to be done', is willfully denying reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
