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.
Yes, society is made up of people -- but not just people, but also institutions. "Society" and "people" are not exclusive concepts. Rather, they're completely linked to each other.
This is what political ideology does when it comes across a word it doesn't like -- it tried to twist it or erase it into something else. Society exists, and you live in it. Some people are a burden to society -- but it isn't just the poor. A lot of institutions and people can burden society in different ways -- which in turn effects real people.
When you spend tax dollars on military power that the country doesn't need -- you're burdening society. Everyone is paying into something that is essentially useless.
When a company shirks its taxes and pays its workers unlivable wages -- they're burdening society.
Maggie wants to erase the notion of society (and "community" would be another pesky word she doesn't like, I imagine). So where does that leave business? Or government? Governments and businesses don't belong to any one person -- so how the hell do they exist? Because we live in a society.
I wish Kurt Vonnegut were alive right now. His main philosophy of "extending families" would do well to be represented here.
Exactly, the quote, in or out of context is really irrelevant. People don't hate her because of the 'there is no society' quote, but the subsequent actions of her time in power. People aren't always morons you know and can make a value judgement based on what happened around them and in their communities.
Not to say Thatcher was personally culpable in everything at all, but her role in creating a more divisive, antagonistic society in certain respects was a pretty big one.
I disagree. Some people just can't handle their limitations and will shout and moan about it forever. She made everyone richer and the gap between rich and poor went up only 10%. Labour made everyone poorer and the gap between rich and poor went up by much more!
Thatcher was years ahead of her time on the economy, gay rights, abortion, the welfare state pretty much everything. The petty vindictiveness of a vocal minority will soon be forgotten, but I guarantee you that Margaret Thatcher will go down in history as one of the greatest, most innovative politicians of all time.
History will not suddenly wipe away the divisive conflict between the left and the right, and if you think history will someday "pick a side", well, I don't think you understand history very well at all.
On April 09 2013 02:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: Socialists and other creatures of the Left are angry that she took them on on their own terms, ground them into a pulp, destroyed the sinecures and subsidies and distortions that had wrecked the economy during the 70s, and basically pwned the hidebound, reactionary Left over and over again. Now that she's incapable of rhetorically body-slamming them, the bile they kept inside for so long is being vomited out.
Music to my ears.
RIP Margaret. World needs more Union crushers like her.
Reactionary leftist is a contradiction in terms. Might want to look into that DEB.
Also "creatures"? This kind of thinly veiled insult has no place here.
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.
Yes, society is made up of people -- but not just people, but also institutions. "Society" and "people" are not exclusive concepts. Rather, they're completely linked to each other.
This is what political ideology does when it comes across a word it doesn't like -- it tried to twist it or erase it into something else. Society exists, and you live in it. Some people are a burden to society -- but it isn't just the poor. A lot of institutions and people can burden society in different ways -- which in turn effects real people.
When you spend tax dollars on military power that the country doesn't need -- you're burdening society. Everyone is paying into something that is essentially useless.
When a company shirks its taxes and pays its workers unlivable wages -- they're burdening society.
Maggie wants to erase the notion of society (and "community" would be another pesky word she doesn't like, I imagine). So where does that leave business? Or government? Governments and businesses don't belong to any one person -- so how the hell do they exist? Because we live in a society.
I wish Kurt Vonnegut were alive right now. His main philosophy of "extending families" would do well to be represented here.
Exactly, the quote, in or out of context is really irrelevant. People don't hate her because of the 'there is no society' quote, but the subsequent actions of her time in power. People aren't always morons you know and can make a value judgement based on what happened around them and in their communities.
Not to say Thatcher was personally culpable in everything at all, but her role in creating a more divisive, antagonistic society in certain respects was a pretty big one.
I disagree. Some people just can't handle their limitations and will shout and moan about it forever. She made everyone richer and the gap between rich and poor went up only 10%. Labour made everyone poorer and the gap between rich and poor went up by much more!
Thatcher was years ahead of her time on the economy, gay rights, abortion, the welfare state pretty much everything. The petty vindictiveness of a vocal minority will soon be forgotten, but I guarantee you that Margaret Thatcher will go down in history as one of the greatest, most innovative politicians of all time.
Bizzare comment.
You think history will remember her alongside the likes of Bismarck or Stalin in terms of skill in the political sphere?
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.
Yes, society is made up of people -- but not just people, but also institutions. "Society" and "people" are not exclusive concepts. Rather, they're completely linked to each other.
This is what political ideology does when it comes across a word it doesn't like -- it tried to twist it or erase it into something else. Society exists, and you live in it. Some people are a burden to society -- but it isn't just the poor. A lot of institutions and people can burden society in different ways -- which in turn effects real people.
When you spend tax dollars on military power that the country doesn't need -- you're burdening society. Everyone is paying into something that is essentially useless.
When a company shirks its taxes and pays its workers unlivable wages -- they're burdening society.
Maggie wants to erase the notion of society (and "community" would be another pesky word she doesn't like, I imagine). So where does that leave business? Or government? Governments and businesses don't belong to any one person -- so how the hell do they exist? Because we live in a society.
I wish Kurt Vonnegut were alive right now. His main philosophy of "extending families" would do well to be represented here.
Exactly, the quote, in or out of context is really irrelevant. People don't hate her because of the 'there is no society' quote, but the subsequent actions of her time in power. People aren't always morons you know and can make a value judgement based on what happened around them and in their communities.
Not to say Thatcher was personally culpable in everything at all, but her role in creating a more divisive, antagonistic society in certain respects was a pretty big one.
I disagree. Some people just can't handle their limitations and will shout and moan about it forever. She made everyone richer and the gap between rich and poor went up only 10%. Labour made everyone poorer and the gap between rich and poor went up by much more!
Thatcher was years ahead of her time on the economy, gay rights, abortion, the welfare state pretty much everything. The petty vindictiveness of a vocal minority will soon be forgotten, but I guarantee you that Margaret Thatcher will go down in history as one of the greatest, most innovative politicians of all time.
I don't think anyone doubts that she's innovative or great. She obviously had massive influence. The question is whether you think that influence was good or not. And it's not a very clear issue, given the massive amount of disagreement. It just boils down to the whole Left vs Right debate that will never be resolved.
On April 09 2013 03:04 KwarK wrote: On Northern Ireland, the hunger strikers demanded to be treated as political prisoners after planting bombs that killed civilians. Thatcher insisted that they be treated as common criminals because in her view once you start murdering people over your politics that's what you become. Politics is politics and murder is murder, there isn't a crossover and being really hungry doesn't change that. It's unfortunate that Bobby Sands thought that if he got hungry enough then murder would become political but his eventual death wasn't enough to convince me.
If "murder is murder" there would have been a lot more Auxiliaries in prison. It is absolutely unquestionable that, horrific as it was, all sides considered murder political, while of course professing otherwise to claim the moral high ground.
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.
Yes, society is made up of people -- but not just people, but also institutions. "Society" and "people" are not exclusive concepts. Rather, they're completely linked to each other.
This is what political ideology does when it comes across a word it doesn't like -- it tried to twist it or erase it into something else. Society exists, and you live in it. Some people are a burden to society -- but it isn't just the poor. A lot of institutions and people can burden society in different ways -- which in turn effects real people.
When you spend tax dollars on military power that the country doesn't need -- you're burdening society. Everyone is paying into something that is essentially useless.
When a company shirks its taxes and pays its workers unlivable wages -- they're burdening society.
Maggie wants to erase the notion of society (and "community" would be another pesky word she doesn't like, I imagine). So where does that leave business? Or government? Governments and businesses don't belong to any one person -- so how the hell do they exist? Because we live in a society.
I wish Kurt Vonnegut were alive right now. His main philosophy of "extending families" would do well to be represented here.
Exactly, the quote, in or out of context is really irrelevant. People don't hate her because of the 'there is no society' quote, but the subsequent actions of her time in power. People aren't always morons you know and can make a value judgement based on what happened around them and in their communities.
Not to say Thatcher was personally culpable in everything at all, but her role in creating a more divisive, antagonistic society in certain respects was a pretty big one.
I disagree. Some people just can't handle their limitations and will shout and moan about it forever. She made everyone richer and the gap between rich and poor went up only 10%. Labour made everyone poorer and the gap between rich and poor went up by much more!
Thatcher was years ahead of her time on the economy, gay rights, abortion, the welfare state pretty much everything. The petty vindictiveness of a vocal minority will soon be forgotten, but I guarantee you that Margaret Thatcher will go down in history as one of the greatest, most innovative politicians of all time.
I don't think anyone doubts that she's innovative or great. She obviously had massive influence. The question is whether you think that influence was good or not. And it's not a very clear issue, given the massive amount of disagreement. It just boils down to the whole Left vs Right debate that will never be resolved.
At the Parliamentary level it pretty much already has been resolved though, with all three parties adhering to Thatcherism to varying degrees. That's the real problem
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.
Yes, society is made up of people -- but not just people, but also institutions. "Society" and "people" are not exclusive concepts. Rather, they're completely linked to each other.
This is what political ideology does when it comes across a word it doesn't like -- it tried to twist it or erase it into something else. Society exists, and you live in it. Some people are a burden to society -- but it isn't just the poor. A lot of institutions and people can burden society in different ways -- which in turn effects real people.
When you spend tax dollars on military power that the country doesn't need -- you're burdening society. Everyone is paying into something that is essentially useless.
When a company shirks its taxes and pays its workers unlivable wages -- they're burdening society.
Maggie wants to erase the notion of society (and "community" would be another pesky word she doesn't like, I imagine). So where does that leave business? Or government? Governments and businesses don't belong to any one person -- so how the hell do they exist? Because we live in a society.
I wish Kurt Vonnegut were alive right now. His main philosophy of "extending families" would do well to be represented here.
Exactly, the quote, in or out of context is really irrelevant. People don't hate her because of the 'there is no society' quote, but the subsequent actions of her time in power. People aren't always morons you know and can make a value judgement based on what happened around them and in their communities.
Not to say Thatcher was personally culpable in everything at all, but her role in creating a more divisive, antagonistic society in certain respects was a pretty big one.
I disagree. Some people just can't handle their limitations and will shout and moan about it forever. She made everyone richer and the gap between rich and poor went up only 10%. Labour made everyone poorer and the gap between rich and poor went up by much more!
Thatcher was years ahead of her time on the economy, gay rights, abortion, the welfare state pretty much everything. The petty vindictiveness of a vocal minority will soon be forgotten, but I guarantee you that Margaret Thatcher will go down in history as one of the greatest, most innovative politicians of all time.
I don't think anyone doubts that she's innovative or great. She obviously had massive influence. The question is whether you think that influence was good or not. And it's not a very clear issue, given the massive amount of disagreement. It just boils down to the whole Left vs Right debate that will never be resolved.
At the Parliamentary level it pretty much already has been resolved though, with all three parties adhering to Thatcherism to varying degrees. That's the real problem
All three parties are third way, they're definitely not Thatcherist. The reason the Conservatives lost three elections in a row was because of how unpopular Thatcherism was/is.
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.
Yes, society is made up of people -- but not just people, but also institutions. "Society" and "people" are not exclusive concepts. Rather, they're completely linked to each other.
This is what political ideology does when it comes across a word it doesn't like -- it tried to twist it or erase it into something else. Society exists, and you live in it. Some people are a burden to society -- but it isn't just the poor. A lot of institutions and people can burden society in different ways -- which in turn effects real people.
When you spend tax dollars on military power that the country doesn't need -- you're burdening society. Everyone is paying into something that is essentially useless.
When a company shirks its taxes and pays its workers unlivable wages -- they're burdening society.
Maggie wants to erase the notion of society (and "community" would be another pesky word she doesn't like, I imagine). So where does that leave business? Or government? Governments and businesses don't belong to any one person -- so how the hell do they exist? Because we live in a society.
I wish Kurt Vonnegut were alive right now. His main philosophy of "extending families" would do well to be represented here.
Exactly, the quote, in or out of context is really irrelevant. People don't hate her because of the 'there is no society' quote, but the subsequent actions of her time in power. People aren't always morons you know and can make a value judgement based on what happened around them and in their communities.
Not to say Thatcher was personally culpable in everything at all, but her role in creating a more divisive, antagonistic society in certain respects was a pretty big one.
I disagree. Some people just can't handle their limitations and will shout and moan about it forever. She made everyone richer and the gap between rich and poor went up only 10%. Labour made everyone poorer and the gap between rich and poor went up by much more!
Thatcher was years ahead of her time on the economy, gay rights, abortion, the welfare state pretty much everything. The petty vindictiveness of a vocal minority will soon be forgotten, but I guarantee you that Margaret Thatcher will go down in history as one of the greatest, most innovative politicians of all time.
I don't think anyone doubts that she's innovative or great. She obviously had massive influence. The question is whether you think that influence was good or not. And it's not a very clear issue, given the massive amount of disagreement. It just boils down to the whole Left vs Right debate that will never be resolved.
At the Parliamentary level it pretty much already has been resolved though, with all three parties adhering to Thatcherism to varying degrees. That's the real problem
All three parties are third way, they're definitely not Thatcherist. The reason the Conservatives lost three elections in a row was because of how unpopular Thatcherism was/is.
Blair is definitely the ideological successor to Thatcher, combining Thatcherite economics (privatisations accelerated under New Labour) with the "never voting Tory again" working class bloc to win huge majorities. Brown, not so much, but the Brownites ended up thoroughly discredited after the recent economic events.
We're living in a post Thatcherite consensus. The great ideological conflicts are settled and the parties merely argue over execution, the ground is still Thatcher's.
as instrumentalist policy, revitalizing the welfare state is fine. but to genuinely believe in the pointlessness of social welfare and have a hard lutheran ethics about economics as reward and punishment for one's work caste is just medieval.
the stuff about hugging dictators is par for the course.
It's quite interesting to see the differences between America's narrative about Reagan after his death and Brit's reactions to Thatcher's death. They both pretty much harmed the exact same people, but our lower class has throngs of people who put Reagan below only Jesus. I envy you Brits for having a populace that is at the very least aware of their own self interests.
On April 09 2013 03:23 Ksi wrote: It's quite interesting to see the differences between America's narrative about Reagan after his death and Brit's reactions to Thatcher's death. They both pretty much harmed the exact same people, but our lower class has throngs of people who put Reagan below only Jesus. I envy you Brits for having a populace that is at the very least aware of their own self interests.
We have a slightly better media culture over here, emphasis on the 'slightly' part.
American media is amazing at courting outrage to deflect voting blocs anger away from those who are actually culpable, to those who have nothing to do with them.
On April 08 2013 21:49 McBengt wrote: This might be the first time the 21 gun salute shoots the coffin, just to be sure.
Jokes aside, she was probably the most well recognized british politician ever, and the most polarizing. Will be interesting to see the fallout from this, I imagine quite a lot of scorn and schadenfreude will follow.
On April 09 2013 03:23 Ksi wrote: It's quite interesting to see the differences between America's narrative about Reagan after his death and Brit's reactions to Thatcher's death. They both pretty much harmed the exact same people, but our lower class has throngs of people who put Reagan below only Jesus. I envy you Brits for having a populace that is at the very least aware of their own self interests.
We have a slightly better media culture over here, emphasis on the 'slightly' part.
American media is amazing at courting outrage to deflect voting blocs anger away from those who are actually culpable, to those who have nothing to do with them.
This is very true. America media is about sensationalism, instilling a constant sense of fear or outrage, and keeping the populace glued to the TV for advertising ratings. Of course, this is what happens when people start believing that profit driven news outlets will somehow benefit society. Profit driven industries always lead to the best outcome according to modern American ideology, and the free market is never wrong! MMIRIGHT? Even Thatcher herself was never that extreme.
On April 09 2013 02:58 Clbull wrote: On the coal miners strike and the manufacturing industry in Britain, we should have tried to save it instead of leaving it to decline like Thatcher did.
On Northern Ireland, a hard-line stance should not have been pursued especially towards Republican prisoners on hunger strike. The Good Friday agreement and a second Bloody Sunday inquiry should have happened years ago.
We tried to save the mining and manufacturing industry for decades, nationalising each business that went bankrupt in turn as they were unable to find buyers for their merchandise, failed to properly invest and became unprofitable. The result is that in 1976 the country went bankrupt. Literally. The PM had to go to the IMF and ask for a loan to pay the wages of those who were employed by the state because their labour did not pay for itself because it had been subsidised after it ceased to be productive. She didn't hate miners, it's not that simple. The country didn't have any money.
On Northern Ireland, the hunger strikers demanded to be treated as political prisoners after planting bombs that killed civilians. Thatcher insisted that they be treated as common criminals because in her view once you start murdering people over your politics that's what you become. Politics is politics and murder is murder, there isn't a crossover and being really hungry doesn't change that. It's unfortunate that Bobby Sands thought that if he got hungry enough then murder would become political but his eventual death wasn't enough to convince me.
All three sides committed violent atrocities. Even the British. Not even a single gunshot - even if it were from an IRA gunman as the Widgery Report concluded and the Saville Report denied - can really justify firing upon dozens of Bogsiders and killing fourteen of them. Neither can a processions ban which would have technically made the NICRA marchers criminals
Granted this was long before Thatcher's reign but it was during Edward Heath's government and Thatcher did play quite a role in said government.
My point was that Thatcher's approach towards Ireland was certainly understandable but it wasn't going to end the conflict and it angered the Republicans even more.
My second point was that Bloody Sunday was another issue that had to be resolved. It was clear that the issue still rest on the mind of Republicans when the Good Friday Agreement came along and within one of its conditions a second inquiry into the massacre was to be conducted.
On April 09 2013 03:23 Ksi wrote: It's quite interesting to see the differences between America's narrative about Reagan after his death and Brit's reactions to Thatcher's death. They both pretty much harmed the exact same people, but our lower class has throngs of people who put Reagan below only Jesus. I envy you Brits for having a populace that is at the very least aware of their own self interests.
It's actually a pretty good argument for the monarchy. Thatcher was never head of state, so loving or hating her is less about patriotism than it is for Reagan.
On April 09 2013 00:35 Zystra wrote: Too many Socialists in this thread.
Not really trying to derail this thread with a political debate, but I think she hit the nail on the head here. Socialists harp on about how much the 1% earn. Well listen to this, if we were to tax the 1% to the point that they lose more than half of their earnings, they will take their businesses, their ideas, their knowledge and their intellect elsewhere which will doom the other 99% to being much poorer.
Well Said and RIP Mags.
Hehe you use a clip where she outright lies in the face of everyone and you talk about "socialism" which you know nothing about. Which country is better off? Socialist Sweden or UK? Looking at welfare, its pretty obvious. (although I agree sweden has gotten worse since we got a right wing party as government).
Rest In Peace Iron Lady, I hope people realize the truth and your crimes against humanity so that you may not be rememberd in lies, but rather someone we can learn to stray far, far away from.
On April 09 2013 03:23 Ksi wrote: It's quite interesting to see the differences between America's narrative about Reagan after his death and Brit's reactions to Thatcher's death. They both pretty much harmed the exact same people, but our lower class has throngs of people who put Reagan below only Jesus. I envy you Brits for having a populace that is at the very least aware of their own self interests.
It's actually a pretty good argument for the monarchy. Thatcher was never head of state, so loving or hating her is less about patriotism than it is for Reagan.
You do have a point there, but I think it was only true back in the 80's. In today's political climate, only one side of our political spectrum uses the argument that hating on the President is somehow unpatriotic. The American right actually believes that the senators filibustering every bill, the congressmen yelling "you lie" at Obama at the state of the union, and all the other blanket hatred of our current president is actually their patriotic duty. Only they genuinely and truly believe that they represent the only "real" America. To them, they're literally fighting the anti-christ, and Republican Jesus is on their side.
On April 09 2013 03:23 Ksi wrote: It's quite interesting to see the differences between America's narrative about Reagan after his death and Brit's reactions to Thatcher's death. They both pretty much harmed the exact same people, but our lower class has throngs of people who put Reagan below only Jesus. I envy you Brits for having a populace that is at the very least aware of their own self interests.
It's actually a pretty good argument for the monarchy. Thatcher was never head of state, so loving or hating her is less about patriotism than it is for Reagan.
You do have a point there, but I think it was only true back in the 80's. In today's political climate, only one side of our political spectrum uses the argument that hating on the President is somehow unpatriotic. The American right actually believes that the senators filibustering every bill, the congressmen yelling "you lie" at Obama at the state of the union, and all the other blanket hatred of our current president is actually their patriotic duty. Only they genuinely and truly believe that they represent the only "real" America. To them, they're literally fighting the anti-christ, and Republican Jesus is on their side.
Or you're just a political bigot who believes whatever he sees on MSNBC...
EPT
