Baroness Thatcher, Britain's greatest post-war prime minister, has died at the age of 87 after suffering a stroke, her family has announced.
Her son, Sir Mark, and daughter Carol confirmed that she died this morning. Lord Bell, her spokesman, said: "It is with great sadness that Mark and Carol Thatcher announced that their mother Baroness Thatcher died peacefully following a stroke this morning.A further statement will be made later." Known as the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher governed Britain from 1979 to 1990. She will go down in history not only as Britain's first female prime minister, but as the woman who transformed Britain's economy in addition to being a formidable rival on the international stage. Lady Thatcher was the only British prime minister to leave behind a set of ideas about the role of the state which other leaders and nations strove to copy and apply.
Many features of the modern globalised economy - monetarism, privatisation, deregulation, small government, lower taxes and free trade - were all promoted as a result of policies she employed to reverse Britain’s economic decline. Above all, in America and in Eastern Europe she was regarded, alongside her friend Ronald Reagan, as one of the two great architects of the West’s victory in the Cold War. Of modern British prime ministers, only Lady Thatcher’s girlhood hero, Winston Churchill, acquired a higher international reputation. Lady Thatcher had become increasingly frail in recent years following a series of small strokes in 2001 and 2002. Her daughter Carol also revealed in 2008 that she had been diagnosed with dementia, which had increasingly affected her memory for the last decade. Ill-health had prevented her attending an 85th birthday party in Downing Street arranged by David Cameron in October 2010. It also prevented her attending the Royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton on April 29, 2011 at Westminster Abbey. Lady Thatcher published two volumes of memoirs. The first, The Downing Street Years (1993), covered her time as Prime Minister, while the second volume, The Path to Power (1995), concerned her early life. She also published a magisterial volume on international affairs, Statecraft (2002). She is survived by her two children. Her husband Sir Denis died in 2003.
She has been ill for sometime now. Suffered with Alzheimer's for a while, got to a point where she couldn't even recognize her own daughter. So i guess the stroke could be linked to that?
But indeed, RIP Baroness Thatcher, you made GB a tougher place when you were in charge, somethings you did were questionable, but i bet we wouldn't have the issues we have now if you were in charge.
The single sexiest female politician to ever come onto the centre stage. Her ability to exert mass amounts of subtle power over people and dominate political intrigue is an example today's women need to start catching a hold of, it wasn't her looks that dictated her attractiveness nor prestige but her intelligence, confidence and ability to sway diverse opinion with a treasure trove of word smith techniques that comes unmatched by most through history.
She will be remembered in kind, whether people realize it today or not.
I think that being too young and from another country it's impossible to have proper opinion about her politics. One of the most influential and controversial politicians of 20th century for sure. RIP
"Britain's greatest post-war prime minister" a lot of people would disagree here, the telegraph isn't the greatest source when it comes to political tory/labour stories in Britain. However she made some tough decisions so I respect her for that.
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 08 2013 21:49 McBengt wrote: 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 08 2013 22:11 Gowerly wrote: I wouldn't feel too bad for the family, to be honest. There's Mark, the Arms Dealer. Caroline seems ok enough, but there was that gollywog incident.
No real point in discussing her politics. They are super devisive.
For those that really disliked her, best to just be indifferent about the whole thing.
She made a fantastic Spitting Image character, though (for you UK people).
I really hope it blows over in the News quickly, though. Top 4 BBC stories all about her death. One is enough, surely.
On April 08 2013 21:38 Hitch-22 wrote: The single sexiest female politician to ever come onto the centre stage. Her ability to exert mass amounts of subtle power over people and dominate political intrigue is an example today's women need to start catching a hold of, it wasn't her looks that dictated her attractiveness nor prestige but her intelligence, confidence and ability to sway diverse opinion with a treasure trove of word smith techniques that comes unmatched by most through history.
She will be remembered in kind, whether people realize it today or not.
You are politicizing her death just as much as people that would use her death as an opportunity to state how they disagreed with her policies.
On April 08 2013 21:38 Hitch-22 wrote: The single sexiest female politician to ever come onto the centre stage. Her ability to exert mass amounts of subtle power over people and dominate political intrigue is an example today's women need to start catching a hold of, it wasn't her looks that dictated her attractiveness nor prestige but her intelligence, confidence and ability to sway diverse opinion with a treasure trove of word smith techniques that comes unmatched by most through history.
She will be remembered in kind, whether people realize it today or not.
You are politicizing her death just as much as people that would use her death as an opportunity to state how they disagreed with her policies.
How so if you don't mind me asking? This is my opinion.
I'm not going to refrain for one minute from giving my thanks that one of the most bigoted, out of touch, aristocratic politicians Britain has ever seen has finally passed. She single handedly set our economy on a path that does nothing but harm the worker and benefit the business. Obviously in her old age she was just a harmless, slightly kooky old racist but I'm so glad she's gone. Ordinarily it would be representative of the end of an era, but her lapdog Cameron is still around to ruin the country further.
On April 08 2013 21:38 Hitch-22 wrote: The single sexiest female politician to ever come onto the centre stage. Her ability to exert mass amounts of subtle power over people and dominate political intrigue is an example today's women need to start catching a hold of, it wasn't her looks that dictated her attractiveness nor prestige but her intelligence, confidence and ability to sway diverse opinion with a treasure trove of word smith techniques that comes unmatched by most through history.
She will be remembered in kind, whether people realize it today or not.
You are politicizing her death just as much as people that would use her death as an opportunity to state how they disagreed with her policies.
How so if you don't mind me asking? This is my opinion.
Very simple. Margaret Thatcher dies and then if someone would debate the wrongness of her politics, that person would be attacked for politicizing a death. On the other hand, if she dies and someone praises her that's considered perfectly acceptable, even if it's also politicizing a death.
On April 08 2013 22:33 Larkin wrote: I'm not going to refrain for one minute from giving my thanks that one of the most bigoted, out of touch, aristocratic politicians Britain has ever seen has finally passed. She single handedly set our economy on a path that does nothing but harm the worker and benefit the business. Obviously in her old age she was just a harmless, slightly kooky old racist but I'm so glad she's gone. Ordinarily it would be representative of the end of an era, but her lapdog Cameron is still around to ruin the country further.
How in the hell is she aristocratic, do you even know who she is? As for the rest they are political but show some respect.
On April 08 2013 22:33 Larkin wrote: I'm not going to refrain for one minute from giving my thanks that one of the most bigoted, out of touch, aristocratic politicians Britain has ever seen has finally passed. She single handedly set our economy on a path that does nothing but harm the worker and benefit the business. Obviously in her old age she was just a harmless, slightly kooky old racist but I'm so glad she's gone. Ordinarily it would be representative of the end of an era, but her lapdog Cameron is still around to ruin the country further.
How in the hell is she aristocratic, do you even know who she is? As for the rest they are political but show some respect.
In the sense that she supported top to bottom over anything else.
On April 08 2013 21:38 Hitch-22 wrote: The single sexiest female politician to ever come onto the centre stage. Her ability to exert mass amounts of subtle power over people and dominate political intrigue is an example today's women need to start catching a hold of, it wasn't her looks that dictated her attractiveness nor prestige but her intelligence, confidence and ability to sway diverse opinion with a treasure trove of word smith techniques that comes unmatched by most through history.
She will be remembered in kind, whether people realize it today or not.
You are politicizing her death just as much as people that would use her death as an opportunity to state how they disagreed with her policies.
How so if you don't mind me asking? This is my opinion.
Very simple. Margaret Thatcher dies and then if someone would debate the wrongness of her politics, that person would be attacked for politicizing a death. On the other hand, if she dies and someone praises her that's considered perfectly acceptable, even if it's also politicizing a death.
I have no issue with someone debating her politics but saying what I thought of her is just what I thought of her on a forum, I found her ability to maintain power in a time where womens equality was challenged daily and how she handled herself both privately and politically was profound. Call it as you will, I have no issue with someone questioning her politics now or when she was alive.
Well she did inspire lots of great bands that got fueled by their hate for her. On the politics side I guess you can only love or hate her, but I think most should admit that she was before her time as a female in world politics.
On a sidenote I have to say that I really like her son for the 2004 Equatorial Guinea coup d'état attempt. Unfortunately it failed but I really wanted to do that myself since around the turn of the millenia.
On April 08 2013 22:33 Larkin wrote: I'm not going to refrain for one minute from giving my thanks that one of the most bigoted, out of touch, aristocratic politicians Britain has ever seen has finally passed. She single handedly set our economy on a path that does nothing but harm the worker and benefit the business. Obviously in her old age she was just a harmless, slightly kooky old racist but I'm so glad she's gone. Ordinarily it would be representative of the end of an era, but her lapdog Cameron is still around to ruin the country further.
I'm with you on this, i hope she doesn't get too much credit and even tough she was one of the bigger figures of UK during the 80s it was not for good reasons in my opinion (aside from her piercing through machism).
Btw i think she wasnt born with a golden spoon, her father owned some kind of store.
On April 08 2013 22:33 Larkin wrote: I'm not going to refrain for one minute from giving my thanks that one of the most bigoted, out of touch, aristocratic politicians Britain has ever seen has finally passed. She single handedly set our economy on a path that does nothing but harm the worker and benefit the business. Obviously in her old age she was just a harmless, slightly kooky old racist but I'm so glad she's gone. Ordinarily it would be representative of the end of an era, but her lapdog Cameron is still around to ruin the country further.
It feels as if you just used pseudo-politcal terms of all sorts to vent your rage. Thatcher is definitely the most polarizing figures of her time and you either loved or hated her, with or without good reason. While I shall not comment on her policies, she certainly displayed a ballsy attitude which puts most politicians today to shame.
On April 08 2013 22:33 Larkin wrote: I'm not going to refrain for one minute from giving my thanks that one of the most bigoted, out of touch, aristocratic politicians Britain has ever seen has finally passed. She single handedly set our economy on a path that does nothing but harm the worker and benefit the business. Obviously in her old age she was just a harmless, slightly kooky old racist but I'm so glad she's gone. Ordinarily it would be representative of the end of an era, but her lapdog Cameron is still around to ruin the country further.
It feels as if you just used pseudo-politcal terms of all sorts to vent your rage. Thatcher is definitely the most polarizing figures of her time and you either loved or hated her, with or without good reason. While I shall not comment on her policies, she certainly displayed a ballsy attitude which puts most politicians today to shame.
RIP
Rage is a bit of an overstatement, I'm not particularly angry. Yes she was certainly ballsy and a powerful politician but she was totally ignorant of what she was doing to the people of the country or she just didn't care. She put entire towns out of work, then wondered why the economy was a little bit broken. She essentially kick started a vicious cycle of boom and bust.
On April 08 2013 22:33 Larkin wrote: I'm not going to refrain for one minute from giving my thanks that one of the most bigoted, out of touch, aristocratic politicians Britain has ever seen has finally passed. She single handedly set our economy on a path that does nothing but harm the worker and benefit the business. Obviously in her old age she was just a harmless, slightly kooky old racist but I'm so glad she's gone. Ordinarily it would be representative of the end of an era, but her lapdog Cameron is still around to ruin the country further.
How in the hell is she aristocratic, do you even know who she is? As for the rest they are political but show some respect.
In the sense that she supported top to bottom over anything else.
I can't understand what you meant by that, could you explain?
On April 08 2013 22:11 MasterOfPuppets wrote: I don't get all this hatred for one of the most cunning politicians of the post-war era.
Rest in peace.
Because you never grew up in the country when she was Prime Minister at the time prehaps?
No one should comment on "how great she was" unless they experienced it personally. I did and i have to say she will not be missed one bit by a hell of a lot of people in the UK trust me. Do not believe the English press on the issue of "greatness" as they are almost all Conservative backed.
On April 08 2013 22:33 Larkin wrote: I'm not going to refrain for one minute from giving my thanks that one of the most bigoted, out of touch, aristocratic politicians Britain has ever seen has finally passed. She single handedly set our economy on a path that does nothing but harm the worker and benefit the business. Obviously in her old age she was just a harmless, slightly kooky old racist but I'm so glad she's gone. Ordinarily it would be representative of the end of an era, but her lapdog Cameron is still around to ruin the country further.
How in the hell is she aristocratic, do you even know who she is? As for the rest they are political but show some respect.
In the sense that she supported top to bottom over anything else.
I can't understand what you meant by that, could you explain?
He is implying that her movements towards polarizing on free-trade, deregulation and economic reform (generally towards privatizing the market) was a 'top down' approach. In reality, it was strangled by greed towards the end of her reign but within respect her movements saved Britain from economic turmoil but like anything good it can be twisted and disfigured.
On April 08 2013 22:30 Atom Cannister wrote: This topic should refrain from anything other than RIP and the like, I think.
So are we all to post "RIP"and have a thread full of "RIP"s as if this is a petition thread where every poster is expected to sheepishly only write "/signed"?
I don't see how talking about her politics is out of place. After all, she was a politician. She will be remembered for her politics and neoliberal/conservative ideology.
Oh the irony of politicizing the death of a politician.
Wow, feels really strange even though I never agreed with her policies. Growing up in the States with an English mother, my family was always trying to get as much news as we could from over there, so hearing about Thatcher was a big part of that. I think people are overstating her 'ballsy attitude' or whatever though lol. Either just coincidence or actual English culture (stiff upper lip), but my mother made her look tame by comparison. Nothing scares a hick back in VA where I grew up more than a strong English woman with a Cockney accent! :D
On April 08 2013 22:33 Larkin wrote: I'm not going to refrain for one minute from giving my thanks that one of the most bigoted, out of touch, aristocratic politicians Britain has ever seen has finally passed. She single handedly set our economy on a path that does nothing but harm the worker and benefit the business. Obviously in her old age she was just a harmless, slightly kooky old racist but I'm so glad she's gone. Ordinarily it would be representative of the end of an era, but her lapdog Cameron is still around to ruin the country further.
How in the hell is she aristocratic, do you even know who she is? As for the rest they are political but show some respect.
In the sense that she supported top to bottom over anything else.
I can't understand what you meant by that, could you explain?
He is implying that her movements towards polarizing on free-trade, deregulation and economic reform (generally towards privatizing the market) was a 'top down' approach. In reality, it was strangled by greed towards the end of her reign but within respect her movements saved Britain from economic turmoil but like anything good it can be twisted and disfigured.
Are you seriously suggesting that the destruction of unions and total exploitation of the worker in the 80s was a good thing? When whole towns like Corby were put out of work in one fell swoop, that's just "something good being twisted and disfigured"?
On April 08 2013 22:33 Larkin wrote: I'm not going to refrain for one minute from giving my thanks that one of the most bigoted, out of touch, aristocratic politicians Britain has ever seen has finally passed. She single handedly set our economy on a path that does nothing but harm the worker and benefit the business. Obviously in her old age she was just a harmless, slightly kooky old racist but I'm so glad she's gone. Ordinarily it would be representative of the end of an era, but her lapdog Cameron is still around to ruin the country further.
How in the hell is she aristocratic, do you even know who she is? As for the rest they are political but show some respect.
In the sense that she supported top to bottom over anything else.
I can't understand what you meant by that, could you explain?
He is implying that her movements towards polarizing on free-trade, deregulation and economic reform (generally towards privatizing the market) was a 'top down' approach. In reality, it was strangled by greed towards the end of her reign but within respect her movements saved Britain from economic turmoil but like anything good it can be twisted and disfigured.
Are you seriously suggesting that the destruction of unions and total exploitation of the worker in the 80s was a good thing? When whole towns like Corby were put out of work in one fell swoop, that's just "something good being twisted and disfigured"?
On April 08 2013 22:30 Atom Cannister wrote: This topic should refrain from anything other than RIP and the like, I think.
So are we all to post "RIP"and have a thread full of "RIP"s as if this is a petition thread where every poster is expected to sheepishly only write "/signed"?
I don't see how talking about her politics is out of place. After all, she was a politician. She will be remembered for her politics and neoliberal/conservative ideology.
Oh the irony of politicizing the death of a politician.
I just know of the anger I have (I'm Irish) and think that others would be similar. In my opinion, all that anger in one thread could only lead to bad things.
People seem to be forgetting that the economy was collapsing when she came in to power and the unions had the whole nation at their mercy. There is no question she saved the English economy, some will say she did the wrong move, some will say she did the right move but she did succeed. In addition she played a large role that impacted the Cold War, helping end it. The fact she was voted in 3 times shows how the majority view here. So perhaps people should look at the bigger picture before posting.
On April 08 2013 22:30 Atom Cannister wrote: This topic should refrain from anything other than RIP and the like, I think.
So are we all to post "RIP"and have a thread full of "RIP"s as if this is a petition thread where every poster is expected to sheepishly only write "/signed"?
I don't see how talking about her politics is out of place. After all, she was a politician. She will be remembered for her politics and neoliberal/conservative ideology.
Oh the irony of politicizing the death of a politician.
I just know of the anger I have (I'm Irish) and think that others would be similar. In my opinion, all that anger in one thread could only lead to bad things.
It might lead to bad things, but I think we should give people a chance to at least try. Not that its up to us anyway, but you are kind of assuming that things will go badly without really knowing whether they will. So far things are pretty respectful in this thread. And if some people go over the top, they'll be temp-banned, and discussion will resume as normal!
On April 08 2013 22:33 Larkin wrote: I'm not going to refrain for one minute from giving my thanks that one of the most bigoted, out of touch, aristocratic politicians Britain has ever seen has finally passed. She single handedly set our economy on a path that does nothing but harm the worker and benefit the business. Obviously in her old age she was just a harmless, slightly kooky old racist but I'm so glad she's gone. Ordinarily it would be representative of the end of an era, but her lapdog Cameron is still around to ruin the country further.
How in the hell is she aristocratic, do you even know who she is? As for the rest they are political but show some respect.
In the sense that she supported top to bottom over anything else.
I can't understand what you meant by that, could you explain?
He is implying that her movements towards polarizing on free-trade, deregulation and economic reform (generally towards privatizing the market) was a 'top down' approach. In reality, it was strangled by greed towards the end of her reign but within respect her movements saved Britain from economic turmoil but like anything good it can be twisted and disfigured.
Are you seriously suggesting that the destruction of unions and total exploitation of the worker in the 80s was a good thing? When whole towns like Corby were put out of work in one fell swoop, that's just "something good being twisted and disfigured"?
I would and i'm sure many others would too.
Count me in. I am very sorry, that there is no politician nowadays which has balls to smack the greddy union leaders on their heads.
She and Reagan were the best that could happen to the well being of the economy, they should be sorely missed.
Il remember Thatcher for her treatment of political prisoners in the North, for sending troops to the Falklands to kill and be killed, for the class based oppression of the Miners in Britain and for the most draconian policies and political hubris ever to grace British politics. She was 'ballsy' and 'Strong' only in the way that Yeltsin was 'ballsy' in sticking to his guns and committing genocide against the Chechens. Although I wont revel in her death, I wouldn't commend her considering the various crimes against humanity she orchestrated.
From what I've read she was a pretty amazing woman, a very polarizing figure. She cleaned up Britan by clamping down on union rights, destroyed Britain's traditional industrial base and sold off most of the nationalized industries. Her policies hurt a lot of working class famlies and that's why there is a lot of hate for her.
She broke union power that was too strong and holding back the economy, finished off Britan's dying traditional industrial base and paved the way for the growth of a strong service based economy while encouraging private investment and entrepreneurship.
Either way you look at it you either hate her or love her.
I remember hearing that parties were planned to celebrate the death of Thatcher for years now (decades). I wonder how much of this will actually go through now that she has actually died. I have little respect for her politics or her personal character, but Alzheimer's is a terrible thing which I've had face-to-face experience with when my grandmother began to succumb to it. I hope that she was able to die with some clarity and peace rather than the murky confusion that comes with Alzheimer's and that her family did not suffer too much from it, although doubtless they did to some degree assuming that they were not all sociopaths.
I can't even think of anything approaching nice to say about this woman. She wasn't doing anything these days so it's not like her death is amazing news in the way the death of an oppressive dictator might be, but all the same I'm certainly not sad to hear the news.
Unforunately I think we're now even going to give her a state funeral? Disgusting.
On April 08 2013 23:38 Iyerbeth wrote: I can't even think of anything approaching nice to say about this woman. She wasn't doing anything these days so it's not like her death is amazing news in the way the death of an oppressive dictator might, but all the same I'm certainly not sad to hear the news.
Unforunately I think we're now even going to give her a state funeral? Disgusting.
If we did give her a state funeral it would be against her wishes.
She may be pretty abrasive, she was kind of a bitch so it's easy to hate her. But she made a lot of controversial decisions that upset a lot of people, even though it was for the best (though the people will always deny that)
On April 08 2013 23:38 Iyerbeth wrote: I can't even think of anything approaching nice to say about this woman. She wasn't doing anything these days so it's not like her death is amazing news in the way the death of an oppressive dictator might, but all the same I'm certainly not sad to hear the news.
Unforunately I think we're now even going to give her a state funeral? Disgusting.
If we did give her a state funeral it would be against her wishes.
I don't think she complained when the Labour party brought up the idea a few years back? I may be mistaken (I hope I am).
BBC reports: She will not have a state funeral but will be accorded the same status as Princess Diana and the Queen Mother.
Earlier it said "She will not receive a State Funeral in accordance with her wishes". I dislike this new version a bit less. It seems against her whole career. I'd be happy to privatise out her funeral.
On April 08 2013 22:33 Larkin wrote: I'm not going to refrain for one minute from giving my thanks that one of the most bigoted, out of touch, aristocratic politicians Britain has ever seen has finally passed. She single handedly set our economy on a path that does nothing but harm the worker and benefit the business. Obviously in her old age she was just a harmless, slightly kooky old racist but I'm so glad she's gone. Ordinarily it would be representative of the end of an era, but her lapdog Cameron is still around to ruin the country further.
How in the hell is she aristocratic, do you even know who she is? As for the rest they are political but show some respect.
In the sense that she supported top to bottom over anything else.
I can't understand what you meant by that, could you explain?
He is implying that her movements towards polarizing on free-trade, deregulation and economic reform (generally towards privatizing the market) was a 'top down' approach. In reality, it was strangled by greed towards the end of her reign but within respect her movements saved Britain from economic turmoil but like anything good it can be twisted and disfigured.
Are you seriously suggesting that the destruction of unions and total exploitation of the worker in the 80s was a good thing? When whole towns like Corby were put out of work in one fell swoop, that's just "something good being twisted and disfigured"?
I would and i'm sure many others would too.
Nice to know there are still supporters of malevolent classist politics out there.
On April 08 2013 23:51 Gowerly wrote: BBC reports: She will not have a state funeral but will be accorded the same status as Princess Diana and the Queen Mother.
Earlier it said "She will not receive a State Funeral in accordance with her wishes". I dislike this new version a bit less. It seems against her whole career. I'd be happy to privatise out her funeral.
Most people will struggle to find one MP that mirrors the political views they have. While you may not agree with what she did as PM, I don't think you should feel the need to bash her name on the day she has died. She served the country for a long time and did what she thought was best for the UK.
I can't think of a stronger female politician that the world has seen in modern times. She turned a modern country around. broke her political opposition, and structured world economic policy for the rest of the modern world.
As a german, I will mostly remember her for opposing german reunification (initially, it seems she changed her mind later, when i was pretty much inevitable) and "having her view of germans made up until 1942 and not changed much since" (roughly translated from what I read in german wikipedia).
That being said, her death ends my dislike of her aswell. RIP.
I was going to refrain from a political discussion but seeing the amount of hateful things already said in this thread i may as well indulge a little. The comparisons to Yeltsin and Hitler and political leaders that committed genocide is comical at best, will some people get a grip. As for what she did in the north, she tried to set Britain up for the future, our industries were dying and on their last leg, no longer profitable. She tried to get rid of these backwards industries and pave way for a new economy for Britain, knowing that the coal mines were both unsafe and no sustainable. Instead of letting her get on with her job, a lot of the miners rose up in arms, mainly revolting against the culture of the miners dieing rather than job or anything, and made it Maggie vs the miners/unions. This made the whole situation turn sour and essentially escalated into all out political war on both sides. The unions resisted her at every turn, making the situation 100 times worse. Likely my grandfather had the sense to break the family tradition and move south for a better job, he didn't want his children living down the mines and saw the troubles ahead.
As for the "unions" or self interest groups as they should be called, im glad she crushed them. The ones in power today are pretty awful. They don't even represent the workers, how can a man/women on 100k+ salary at the top of a union represent the working class? And why do they have power in the political sphere, essentially telling labour to back Ed Milliband instead of his better brother David. And always instantly launching strike campaigns against the tory party every time they come into power, for the pure reason of unsettling them because they don't have any power in that particular party, and im sure it would be the same under the lib dems if they had a majority.
The point its, like everything it's not black and white. In my experience it just depends who you talk to, if you talk to a northern from Liverpool or leeds they will of course think Margret thatcher is the devil incarnate, and if you come from the south, you probably think shes pretty good.
Greetings TL. I'm going to leave three paragraphs that sum up the first 4 pages of this thread.
This demand for respectful silence in the wake of a public figure's death is not just misguided but dangerous. That one should not speak ill of the dead is arguably appropriate when a private person dies, but it is wildly inappropriate for the death of a controversial public figure, particularly one who wielded significant influence and political power. "Respecting the grief" of Thatcher family's members is appropriate if one is friends with them or attends a wake they organize, but the protocols are fundamentally different when it comes to public discourse about the person's life and political acts. I made this argument at length last year when Christopher Hitchens died and a speak-no-ill rule about him was instantly imposed (a rule he, more than anyone, viciously violated), and I won't repeat that argument today; those interested can read my reasoning here.
But the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person's death to create hagiography. Typifying these highly dubious claims was this (appropriately diplomatic) statement from President Obama: "The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend." Those gushing depictions can be incredibly consequential, as it was for the week-long tidal wave of unbroken reverence that was heaped on Ronald Reagan upon his death, an episode that to this day shapes how Americans view him and the political ideas he symbolized. Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death. When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms.
Whatever else may be true of her, Thatcher engaged in incredibly consequential acts that affected millions of people around the world. She played a key role not only in bringing about the first Gulf War but also using her influence to publicly advocate for the 2003 attack on Iraq. She denounced Nelson Mandela and his ANC as "terrorists", something even David Cameron ultimately admitted was wrong. She was a steadfast friend to brutal tyrants such as Augusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein and Indonesian dictator General Suharto ("One of our very best and most valuable friends"). And as my Guardian colleague Seumas Milne detailed last year, "across Britain Thatcher is still hated for the damage she inflicted – and for her political legacy of rampant inequality and greed, privatisation and social breakdown."
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.
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.
Disgusting, incredibly disgusting.
Rest in Peace Thatcher, the world certainly doesn't need the politics of yours to make a comeback.
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.
On the other hand you have top economists like J. Stiglitz saying that more equality would actually make the economy a lot more efficient. Equality would benefit EVERYONE instead of just a few tax evaders at the top. If you really want some downright disturbing figures, I suggest you read The Price of Inequality by J. Stiglitz.
1 in 6 Americans (US) live in poverty. 25% of all children in the US grow up in poverty.
Ever since the crisis hit in 2008, unemployment has been increasing all over Europe. The cause of that crisis was a completely deregulated financial market, something Thatcher helped build. How anyone can back those ideas is beyond me, but those who do are generally from families who are well off. It's basically like a king sitting on a golden throne shouting at the poor that it's their fault that they are poor, while he could just melt his throne, share some of it with the poor and have them be more productive, resulting in a stronger economy.
Then again, in Europe anno 2013 it's all about "Me, myself and I". Who cares if others are suffering, as long as I get my money.
I think a lot of people here forget that she was a Cold Warrior. She did the things she did because she was trying to WIN the cold war. Britain is one of the US's closest allies and everything she did was because of the political world she lived in. People now look back on it and think about how "horrible" she was, when in reality she was making the best decisions she thought she possibly could in the moment. I respect her as a politician but disagree with the decisions she made given the information we have now.
RIP Margaret Thatcher, Iron Lady, more of a man than all the PMs who followed her combined. Sadly, your service will not be appreciated, because it's apparently cool to hate you.
I understand that Margaret Thatcher is a very divisive figure in British politics and there are some very strong views on either side. However, wishing ill upon someone or their family after their death is incredibly tactless and vile. You are not required to be sad, nor express your condolences if you have none. However, regular moderation standard still apply here. If you don't want to say anything constructive, perhaps it is best not to post.
If you wish to engage in a discussion regarding Thatcher's legacy rather than her death itself, that should be fine. However, be aware of derailing incredibly hard and starting pointless flame wars. Regular forum rules apply.
This demand for respectful silence in the wake of a public figure's death is not just misguided but dangerous. That one should not speak ill of the dead is arguably appropriate when a private person dies, but it is wildly inappropriate for the death of a controversial public figure, particularly one who wielded significant influence and political power. "Respecting the grief" of Thatcher family's members is appropriate if one is friends with them or attends a wake they organize, but the protocols are fundamentally different when it comes to public discourse about the person's life and political acts. I made this argument at length last year when Christopher Hitchens died and a speak-no-ill rule about him was instantly imposed (a rule he, more than anyone, viciously violated), and I won't repeat that argument today; those interested can read my reasoning here.
But the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person's death to create hagiography. Typifying these highly dubious claims was this (appropriately diplomatic) statement from President Obama: "The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend." Those gushing depictions can be incredibly consequential, as it was for the week-long tidal wave of unbroken reverence that was heaped on Ronald Reagan upon his death, an episode that to this day shapes how Americans view him and the political ideas he symbolized. Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death. When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms.
Whatever else may be true of her, Thatcher engaged in incredibly consequential acts that affected millions of people around the world. She played a key role not only in bringing about the first Gulf War but also using her influence to publicly advocate for the 2003 attack on Iraq. She denounced Nelson Mandela and his ANC as "terrorists", something even David Cameron ultimately admitted was wrong. She was a steadfast friend to brutal tyrants such as Augusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein and Indonesian dictator General Suharto ("One of our very best and most valuable friends"). And as my Guardian colleague Seumas Milne detailed last year, "across Britain Thatcher is still hated for the damage she inflicted – and for her political legacy of rampant inequality and greed, privatisation and social breakdown."
Glenn Greenwald is fucking retarded. "She used her influence to publicly advocate for the 2003 attack on Iraq" "She played a key role in bringing about the first Gulf War" "She was a steadfast friend to Saddam Hussein" Someone should proofread his editorials for internal consistency because he clearly doesn't. It reads like a list of everything guardian readers hate with Thatcher's name pinned onto it.
At 3 am she's still up working on her speech when an IRA bomb destroys much of her hotel, including her suite, and kills many innocent people. Just an hour after the attempt on her life she's on television showing the country she is still very much alive and capable of leadership. They open Marks and Spencer, a high street clothing shop, early so people can find something to wear and she goes on to the Conservative Party conference as planned, giving her first speech at 9:30 am.
"We suffered a tragedy not one of us could have thought would happen in our country. And we picked ourselves up and sorted ourselves out as all good British people do, and I thought, let us stand together for we are British! They were trying to destroy the fundamental freedom that is the birth-right of every British citizen, freedom, justice and democracy".
She was loathed, for good reason, in the North. You would probably have to go as far back as the 18th century Prince William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland to find a domestic politician more widely hated than her in Scotland.
RIP to the victims of General Pinochet, her nearest and dearest friend.
Well that's a fucking retarded post Kwark being as it doesn't address the point made in the quote you quote. A point which is well made. Right now there is an ongoing wall to wall news tongue kiss to this woman going on on the news channels. All the news channels. The fig leaf used is "She was a controversial figure" or "She had her detractors" then 9 minutes of a heroic narrative and one minute of some nerd going "inequality is bad".
I'm not ok with this. The best I can say about her is that she wasn't just another free market crack pot. She was in the first wave of really powerful western free market crack pots.
The only inconsistency I can see in the quotes you use is the use of the word "steadfast". Perhaps "fair weather" would be better.
I don't disagree with his point about hagiography of the dead but following it with a list that is clearly nonsense and flat out claims that she both supported the dictator in everything he did (because guardian readers hate dictators) and at the same time supported the war to depose and kill the dictator (because guardian readers hate war) is ridiculous. It completely undermined an otherwise good point because it didn't make any kind of sense. If she supported war against Saddam Hussein in 1993 and then again in 2003 then she was not a steadfast friend of Saddam Hussein.
The only sad thing here is how much of a disaster this thread has been
Honestly, I didn't care much for her, but there's worse people, too. At least she actually did something =/. I'm an American, so I cannot really speak on the matter personally, anyway.
On April 09 2013 01:18 MoonBear wrote: I understand that Margaret Thatcher is a very divisive figure in British politics and there are some very strong views on either side. However, wishing ill upon someone or their family after their death is incredibly tactless and vile. You are not required to be sad, nor express your condolences if you have none. However, regular moderation standard still apply here. If you don't want to say anything constructive, perhaps it is best not to post.
If you wish to engage in a discussion regarding Thatcher's legacy rather than her death itself, that should be fine. However, be aware of derailing incredibly hard and starting pointless flame wars. Regular forum rules apply.
The problem with these threads is that praising, or expressing agreement with her policies is fine, while sharp criticism is usually frowned upon.
Obviously, expressing satisfaction over someone's death is tactless (not that I've seen anyone do that) but why should praise be appropriate and criticism not?
I don't know, calling a whole person "fucking retarded" because he once had the word "steadfast" published when he shouldn't have seems a little overboard to me.
She was an important figure. We should discuss her. But what's going on on T.V. right now isn't a discussion it's propaganda in action and I'd love to see TL avoid the worst of it. Backseat moderation is a crime but... well... fuck it. Here would not be a terrible place to look if one wonders what constitutes too far when detracting the dead.
On March 06 2013 08:44 Zato-1 wrote: I am glad he died. He inflicted so much pain and misery on the people of Venezuela, progressively ruining that country- South America will be much better off without the rampant populism of this man who was elected democratically but ruled like a dictator, making a mockery of democratic separation of powers, persecuting all dissenting voices, shutting down all media outlets that had enough integrity to stand against him, confiscating private property as he pleased then running it to the ground, like Venezuela's once prosperous metals industries.
I hope that now, the people of Venezuela will be able to climb out of the rancid pit that Hugo Chavez has put them in.
Was fine.
On March 07 2013 06:05 DeepElemBlues wrote: I hope he's having fun burning in hell.
With Margaret Thatcher's death, a great personality who profoundly marked the history of her country during the eleven and a half years she was the Prime Minister of Great Britain, has gone. Throughout her public life, with the conservative beliefs that she fully assumed, she nurtured the influence of the United Kingdom and the defence of its interests.
The relations she maintained with France were always frank and loyal. She knew how to build a constructive and fruitful dialogue with François Mitterrand. Together, they set about reinforcing the ties between our two countries. It was in that era that Mme Thatcher gave the decisive push to the construction of the Channel tunnel.
The president of the Republic would like to express his strong and sincere condolences to the family and friends of Margaret Thatcher and address the British people in a spirit of solidarity.
- François Hollande
That's interesting, since I was under the impression that she and Mitterrand were complete polar opposites in their policies. But it's always nice to see kind words from foreign powers.
On April 09 2013 00:04 hzflank wrote: I am a little disgusted that Thatcher still gets so much support. She did more to harm the UK than any other single person since Hitler.
User was warned for this post
Do please add some content to that statement, maybe a little less on the ridiculous hyperbole and some substance; seems both the moderator and myself (and probably many people) seemingly think making statements of comparison between Thatcher and Hitler deserves a smack down but perhaps we're all wrong and you can show us the way.
I'm kind of surprised to see so many people who are such valiant economically inclined people claiming Thatcher relatively destroyed Britain's unionism and pushed crippling blows on the middle class... Don't get me wrong, unions are great in theory but let's look no further then the United States to see how terrible unionism can corrupt itself inward. You can ask the majority of the community within economics and political finances regarding Britain's near economic collapse and see who they mention as the polarizing figure that turned their course, that would involve some studying though and most people today read a single quote on Facebook about the terrible corporations and clap their hands together with that perspective without any actual research of their own.
No ones saying that you can't speak ill of the dead they're just saying don't be a dick about it. One liners are just as bad as any other one liner no matter what little content is in it. Everything after that is just tact.
At 3 am she's still up working on her speech when an IRA bomb destroys much of her hotel, including her suite, and kills many innocent people. Just an hour after the attempt on her life she's on television showing the country she is still very much alive and capable of leadership. They open Marks and Spencer, a high street clothing shop, early so people can find something to wear and she goes on to the Conservative Party conference as planned, giving her first speech at 9:30 am.
"We suffered a tragedy not one of us could have thought would happen in our country. And we picked ourselves up and sorted ourselves out as all good British people do, and I thought, let us stand together for we are British! They were trying to destroy the fundamental freedom that is the birth-right of every British citizen, freedom, justice and democracy".
Yeah sure judge her on her abrasiveness and not her works
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.
Hard to disassociate the politician from the person, but RIP and condolences to her nearest and dearest.
Pissed off, as ever, by the media coverage today. It's basically 'she was a divisive figure', and subsequently they only get tributes and opinions from one side of that particular divide.
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.
I'm not sure if 'evil' is the correct term. I might be wrong but I like to put down their policies down to ignorance of the lives of those they negatively affect rather than a conscious decision to fuck people over. That said the latter is not necessarily not the case, but I find it easier to live with by discounting it
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.
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.
Baroness Thatcher was almost single-handedly responsible for halting the economic, social, and geopolitical decline of Britain that was started and supported by both parties in the post-war years. A decline that essentially re-started the instant New Labour and her successor Tories got into power.
Her greatest mistake was in believing that crushing Labour and being the force that externally pressured it into New Labour was a good thing; New Labour is just as bad as the old. And the Tories, policy-wise, have fallen all over themselves to be New Labour-lite.
Britain needs a new Iron Lady and there isn't one to be seen anywhere. Baroness Thatcher said she could not and would not stand to see Britain decline; thankfully for her, she isn't here anymore to see idiots like Clegg and Cameron and pretty much everyone in Labour drive Britain right into the ditch.
God give her soul the rest she wouldn't have wanted but certainly deserved.
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."
You know what they call on people who are part of a collective society? Sheeple
RIP Margaret Thatcher, Iron Lady, more of a man than all the PMs who followed her combined. Sadly, your service will not be appreciated, because it's apparently cool to hate you.
It's always been a little bit cool to hate advocates of greed and violence. She used purely ideological rhetoric to promote welfare to the wealthy at the expense of welfare to the poor, even when it made no real fiscal sense. A country needs a strong, healthy, and motivated workforce as much as it needs low business taxes, if not more. Business will exist as long as there is a demand for it -- what's more important is what actual good those businesses provide for society.
And yes, society is a real thing. Otherwise the word wouldn't exist. People are not islands onto themselves. We all impact each other in countless ways, and when you gouge programs that help the general welfare under the excuse that business "needs it", you're fostering an ignorant society. Businesses don't need anything. A business can't die of hunger, or even feel pain for that matter. Business without people is meaningless, and people without society are alone and helpless.
Kurt Vonnegut surely would have a fit to hear her denounce society as not being a real thing. Society is the best thing about humanity. Society is a recognition of each other's humanity.
She was old-school imperialist, in her actions and her rhetoric, putting her antiquated notion of Old England above the lives of innocent people, multiple times, in multiple scenarios.
Condolences to her family and real friends, but congratulations to the rest of the world. She was a tough lady. She appreciated a good fight. Do her the favor of not requesting people coddle her memory just because she's now a corpse.
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!”
On April 09 2013 02:21 mdb wrote: I`m very surprised so many british people didnt like her. I`ve always thought that she was highly respected in UK.
She had a massive effect on british society, moreso than any politician since Churchill. When this happens, there are always winners and losers. In Thatcher's case, the effect on those that lost out was swift and direct, due to the swift and direct action that she took. This explains why so many people hate her in the UK.
On April 09 2013 02:21 mdb wrote: I`m very surprised so many british people didnt like her. I`ve always thought that she was highly respected in UK.
She dismantled the failing foundations upon which many towns and people built their lives and they blamed her for the subsequent collapse. I don't think it's unreasonable to criticise the extent to which she did it, or the degree to which she was motivated by ideology rather than human concern, but you'd have to be delusional to think that the situation in the 1970s was sustainable. The crash was coming either way. Still, when everyone in a town is made unemployed at the same time and secondary and tertiary industries go out of work because they lack the custom to sustain themselves it's easy to hate the immediate source. I'll not deny there was real poverty in much of the country under Thatcher.
A country needs a strong, healthy, and motivated workforce as much as it needs low taxes, if not more.
Britain had a strong, healthy, motivated workforce during the 1970s?
It's always been a little bit cool to hate advocates of greed and violence. She used purely ideological rhetoric to promote welfare to the wealthy at the expense of welfare to the poor, even when it made no real fiscal sense. A country needs a strong, healthy, and motivated workforce as much as it needs low taxes, if not more.
She was old-school imperialist, in her actions and her rhetoric, putting her antiquated notion of Old England above the lives of innocent people, multiple times, in multiple scenarios.
I must admit, Argentina and the USSR were fine countries doing no wrong and it's shameful how the Baroness bullied them, and how she was a violent imperialist [snort] and didn't care about innocent people [snigger] and had 'antiquated' [roflmao] views about 'Old England.' [don't get the vapors now!]
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.
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!”
Full quote is even better for her, the idea that people on entitlements have an obligation to get off entitlements if they are able rather than simply demanding handouts indefinitely is an idea that is very much needed and is very much lacking in our times. Apparently it's heartless and evil to expect people who take to also give back or get into a position at least where they are not simply taking and taking anymore.
All she's saying is that a society is made up of individuals and individuals can't make the ideal amount of contributions to society if they are either jumping on other people's backs and contributing nothing or have people on their back so they are motivated to hold on to what they have harder and give out less.
Opinions are obviously divided about the woman, I wasn't really old enough to care about politics when she was in power. If anything I think its a shame that someone of her obvious intellect and ability had such an awful end. All of her faculties gone.
On April 09 2013 00:04 hzflank wrote: I am a little disgusted that Thatcher still gets so much support. She did more to harm the UK than any other single person since Hitler.
User was warned for this post
Do please add some content to that statement, maybe a little less on the ridiculous hyperbole and some substance; seems both the moderator and myself (and probably many people) seemingly think making statements of comparison between Thatcher and Hitler deserves a smack down but perhaps we're all wrong and you can show us the way.
I'm kind of surprised to see so many people who are such valiant economically inclined people claiming Thatcher relatively destroyed Britain's unionism and pushed crippling blows on the middle class... Don't get me wrong, unions are great in theory but let's look no further then the United States to see how terrible unionism can corrupt itself inward. You can ask the majority of the community within economics and political finances regarding Britain's near economic collapse and see who they mention as the polarizing figure that turned their course, that would involve some studying though and most people today read a single quote on Facebook about the terrible corporations and clap their hands together with that perspective without any actual research of their own.
I cannot comment on the moderation here, but it seems some people think that I compared Thatcher to Hitler, when I clearly did not. I genuinely cannot think of a person since 1945 who has done more harm to the UK than Thatcher.
The reason that I think Thatcher was so bad is due to the change in economic policy that started with Thatcher (in the UK at least). I do not like unregulated capitalism and think that it is and will continue to cause us big problems. I am a Keynesian so I think that employment of the masses is more important than privatization of industry and services. I think anyone has to agree that if someone believes that Keynes was correct then what Thatcher did was very wrong.
DeepElemBlues, And yet people repeat "there is no such thing as society" over and over as they heap condemnation upon her. Such is the state of popular political dialogue. Reading context is pretty hard.
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.
A country needs a strong, healthy, and motivated workforce as much as it needs low taxes, if not more.
Britain had a strong, healthy, motivated workforce during the 1970s?
Yes, to a degree they did, and Maggie didn't appreciate them -- or do you think British people in the 1970's were just inherently lazier for no real reason? She used idiotic rhetoric to simply segregate people from each other -- to tell use that we're not responsible for anyone else. Her rhetoric was as wrong and stupid as it is cruel.
I must admit, Argentina and the USSR were fine countries doing no wrong and it's shameful how the Baroness bullied them, and how she was a violent imperialist [snort] and didn't care about innocent people [snigger] and had 'antiquated' [roflmao] views about 'Old England.' [don't get the vapors now!]
Surely, you're not an Argentinian, and even more surely, you didn't lose anyone due to her military actions. "Innocent people [snigger]?" Right... Surely everyone who died from Maggie's military strikes were completely guilty and deserved to be executed.
On April 09 2013 02:36 KwarK wrote: DeepElemBlues, And yet people repeat "there is no such thing as society" over and over as they heap condemnation upon her. Such is the state of popular political dialogue. Reading context is pretty hard.
We live in a world where everyone has a microscopic attention span, leading to tons of misinformation, misquotation and misconstruance, all of which are owed to laziness and the lack of a desire to do research and form an opinion of one's own. This is hardly surprising...
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.
Surely, you're not an Argentinian, and even more surely, you didn't lose anyone due to her military actions. "Innocent people [snigger]?" Right... Surely everyone who died from Maggie's military strikes were completely guilty and deserved to be executed.
I'm just gonna say it the vibe I'm getting here is that it doesn't matter that Argentina attacked unprovoked, the Western, capitalist side was just plain wrong. Because.
Yes, to a degree they did, and Maggie didn't appreciate them -- or do you think British people in the 1970's were just inherently lazier for no real reason? She used idiotic rhetoric to simply segregate people from each other -- to tell use that we're not responsible for anyone else. Her rhetoric was as wrong and stupid as it is cruel.
1. Britain's economy in the late 1970s was an absolute shambles. Fact. 2. As already explained, she did not say that we are not responsible for anyone else. 3. It is typical of the Left to accuse the Right of idiocy, dividing people, being wrong and stupid and cruel. And yet, we see the most idiotic of ideas (communism/socialism) come from the left, we see the most cruel and divisive and wrong rhetoric come from the Left (the hatred expressed for the rich, or for Christians, or for whites, etc.), and we've seen that their ideas are simply wrong (list all communist countries here, crashed and burned every one except NK and Cuba) (also list the social democratic countries crashing and burning ((save Germany)) in Europe right now) (also list the massive failures of countries like Argentina to improve their economies). So really, just keep throwing out the typical agitprop line straight from the Kremlin circa 1949.
I am ambivalent on the topic of Thatcher, but RIP nonetheless. I think the world needs its Thatchers and Friedmans, but that doesn't mean I like their ideas.
I must say though, lol at DEB channeling William F. Buckley as though Firing Line were still on the air.
Surely, you're not an Argentinian, and even more surely, you didn't lose anyone due to her military actions. "Innocent people [snigger]?" Right... Surely everyone who died from Maggie's military strikes were completely guilty and deserved to be executed.
I'm just gonna say it the vibe I'm getting here is that it doesn't matter that Argentina attacked unprovoked, the Western, capitalist side was just plain wrong. Because.
Yes, to a degree they did, and Maggie didn't appreciate them -- or do you think British people in the 1970's were just inherently lazier for no real reason? She used idiotic rhetoric to simply segregate people from each other -- to tell use that we're not responsible for anyone else. Her rhetoric was as wrong and stupid as it is cruel.
1. Britain's economy in the late 1970s was an absolute shambles. Fact. 2. As already explained, she did not say that we are not responsible for anyone else. 3. It is typical of the Left to accuse the Right of idiocy, dividing people, being wrong and stupid and cruel. And yet, we see the most idiotic of ideas (communism/socialism) come from the left, we see the most cruel and divisive and wrong rhetoric come from the Left (the hatred expressed for the rich, or for Christians, or for whites, etc.), and we've seen that their ideas are simply wrong (list all communist countries here, crashed and burned every one except NK and Cuba) (also list the social democratic countries crashing and burning ((save Germany)) in Europe right now) (also list the massive failures of countries like Argentina to improve their economies). So really, just keep throwing out the typical agitprop line straight from the Kremlin circa 1949.
I'm not sure why you think left and extreme left are the same thing. You should probably look at that.
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.
On April 09 2013 02:45 Aristodemus wrote: Argentina attacked and invaded British soil, yet "Maggies military strikes" make her a villain?
She called Nelson Mandela a terrorist and sided with Pinnochet and the Khymer Rouge. There's no defending that.
Margaret Thatcher stated that "So, you'll find that the more reasonable ones of the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in the future government, but only a minority part. I share your utter horror that these terrible things went on in Kampuchea."
She objected to kicking them out of the UN for the sake of retaining a dialogue with the more reasonable elements within the country while condemning the atrocities.
On April 09 2013 02:36 KwarK wrote: DeepElemBlues, And yet people repeat "there is no such thing as society" over and over as they heap condemnation upon her. Such is the state of popular political dialogue. Reading context is pretty hard.
Personally I'm not saddened by the "death" of this alleged "Thatcher" anyway, since she doesn't exist: there are individual cells, and there are organs
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.
Surely, you're not an Argentinian, and even more surely, you didn't lose anyone due to her military actions. "Innocent people [snigger]?" Right... Surely everyone who died from Maggie's military strikes were completely guilty and deserved to be executed.
I'm just gonna say it the vibe I'm getting here is that it doesn't matter that Argentina attacked unprovoked, the Western, capitalist side was just plain wrong. Because.
Yes, to a degree they did, and Maggie didn't appreciate them -- or do you think British people in the 1970's were just inherently lazier for no real reason? She used idiotic rhetoric to simply segregate people from each other -- to tell use that we're not responsible for anyone else. Her rhetoric was as wrong and stupid as it is cruel.
1. Britain's economy in the late 1970s was an absolute shambles. Fact. 2. As already explained, she did not say that we are not responsible for anyone else. 3. It is typical of the Left to accuse the Right of idiocy, dividing people, being wrong and stupid and cruel. And yet, we see the most idiotic of ideas (communism/socialism) come from the left, we see the most cruel and divisive and wrong rhetoric come from the Left (the hatred expressed for the rich, or for Christians, or for whites, etc.), and we've seen that their ideas are simply wrong (list all communist countries here, crashed and burned every one except NK and Cuba) (also list the social democratic countries crashing and burning ((save Germany)) in Europe right now) (also list the massive failures of countries like Argentina to improve their economies). So really, just keep throwing out the typical agitprop line straight from the Kremlin circa 1949.
1. Britain's economy was an absolute shambles because we were recovering from the biggest wars in history. Thatcher implemented a temporary fix which has now come back to hurt us.
3. Sure, everything that you disagree with is idiocy and we all countries should do everything exactly like the USA does. Europeans are all communists or socialists at heart. /sarcasm
Margaret Thatcher stated that "So, you'll find that the more reasonable ones of the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in the future government, but only a minority part. I share your utter horror that these terrible things went on in Kampuchea."
She objected to kicking them out of the UN for the sake of retaining a dialogue with the more reasonable elements within the country while condemning the atrocities.
You think there were reasonable elements within the Khmer Rouge?
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.
Her point cuts both ways. When you allow a business to cheat its taxes then it is not robbing the idea of society, it is robbing real people. That is even more relevant today while Amazon, Starbucks and so forth dodge taxes in the UK. They're not stealing from the government or from society, they're stealing from you and me and Thatcher got that and would have gone after them for it.
As for the military being a waste, it is strange to me that you make that point while talking about Thatcher, who presided over the last time British soil was invaded by a foreign nation and used the military to secure the self detirmination of British people, to make that point. Either way, the military is something we democratically vote to spend money on, it's not especially relevant to anything.
I wasn't born in her era but reading about the policies she introduced, I am kinda on the fence.
I agree with the tax changes. Maybe tax cuts should have been less relaxed for the rich but I didn't agree with Poll Tax because from what I heard, many communities in the North and in Scotland where they trialled the scheme simply couldn't pay the rates demanded. Income tax should have been remained the default.
On invading the Falklands. I agree with that move. Despite geographical distance, Argentina holds no claim to the Falkland Islands. Their citizens are British subjects and in a recent poll voted almost unanimously to stay a British overseas territory. We should have defended our territories in that situation and we did.
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.
On April 09 2013 02:45 Aristodemus wrote: Argentina attacked and invaded British soil, yet "Maggies military strikes" make her a villain?
She called Nelson Mandela a terrorist and sided with Pinnochet and the Khymer Rouge. There's no defending that.
Margaret Thatcher stated that "So, you'll find that the more reasonable ones of the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in the future government, but only a minority part. I share your utter horror that these terrible things went on in Kampuchea."
She objected to kicking them out of the UN for the sake of retaining a dialogue with the more reasonable elements within the country while condemning the atrocities.
You think there were reasonable elements within the Khmer Rouge?
I couldn't name names but I'd wager that every institution everywhere has people of varying fervour and corruptability.
1. Britain's economy was an absolute shambles because we were recovering from the biggest wars in history. Thatcher implemented a temporary fix which has now come back to hurt us.
Ummm, World War 2 ended in 1945. Britain's economy was in a shambles because Eden and the rest built a huge welfare state supported by a malformed economic apparatus. Most of the world, Britain not excluded, had huge economic boom times in the 1960s that turned into stagflation and other economic badness in the 1970s, because of bad government policies.
3. Sure, everything that you disagree with is idiocy and we all countries should do everything exactly like the USA does. Europeans are all communists or socialists at heart. /sarcasm
Well Strawman leftist, the things I listed as idiocy are in fact idiocy, I made no claims regarding everything I disagree with being idiocy, or that every country should do everything just like the USA, or that all Europeans are all commie pinko reds at heart.
Simply pointing out that one system is evidently vastly superior to both the communist/socialist and social democratic models, as results have shown time and time again.
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.
On April 09 2013 02:45 Aristodemus wrote: Argentina attacked and invaded British soil, yet "Maggies military strikes" make her a villain?
She called Nelson Mandela a terrorist and sided with Pinnochet and the Khymer Rouge. There's no defending that.
Margaret Thatcher stated that "So, you'll find that the more reasonable ones of the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in the future government, but only a minority part. I share your utter horror that these terrible things went on in Kampuchea."
She objected to kicking them out of the UN for the sake of retaining a dialogue with the more reasonable elements within the country while condemning the atrocities.
You think there were reasonable elements within the Khmer Rouge?
I couldn't name names but I'd wager that every institution everywhere has people of varying fervour and corruptability.
The "reasonable elements" were people opposed to the Viet Minh, not people opposed to genocide.
Surely, you're not an Argentinian, and even more surely, you didn't lose anyone due to her military actions. "Innocent people [snigger]?" Right... Surely everyone who died from Maggie's military strikes were completely guilty and deserved to be executed.
I'm just gonna say it the vibe I'm getting here is that it doesn't matter that Argentina attacked unprovoked, the Western, capitalist side was just plain wrong. Because.
Even British people thought her reaction was disproportionate to what needed to be done. She wasn't defending Britain, she was punishing Argentina. There is a difference.
Yes, to a degree they did, and Maggie didn't appreciate them -- or do you think British people in the 1970's were just inherently lazier for no real reason? She used idiotic rhetoric to simply segregate people from each other -- to tell use that we're not responsible for anyone else. Her rhetoric was as wrong and stupid as it is cruel.
1. Britain's economy in the late 1970s was an absolute shambles. Fact. 2. As already explained, she did not say that we are not responsible for anyone else. 3. It is typical of the Left to accuse the Right of idiocy, dividing people, being wrong and stupid and cruel. And yet, we see the most idiotic of ideas (communism/socialism) come from the left, we see the most cruel and divisive and wrong rhetoric come from the Left (the hatred expressed for the rich, or for Christians, or for whites, etc.), and we've seen that their ideas are simply wrong (list all communist countries here, crashed and burned every one except NK and Cuba) (also list the social democratic countries crashing and burning ((save Germany)) in Europe right now) (also list the massive failures of countries like Argentina to improve their economies). So really, just keep throwing out the typical agitprop line straight from the Kremlin circa 1949.
You completely just changed the topic here. The point is why was the economy struggling? I never argued that the economy needed help. But her idea of help, and yours I assume, is to help institutions that don't really need help and will always exist in one form or another. People want to work, and trade will always exist. We don't need to think that if we don't give "businesses" as much comfort as possible, then people somehow just become useless bags of meat.
Right-wingers talk about businesses as if they're sentient beings. "Tax them and they'll leave." Who/What will leave? A name on a billboard? I understand there are economic nuances to be discussed in keeping businesses healthy and growing -- but realize that the only reason to care about any of that is for the impact they have on society. Business can do very well for itself while society suffers, for example, the Industrial Revolution. Great for business -- but society struggled.
What's important, and what a public servant should be concerned with is the actual welfare of the people. She didn't see it that way.
All countries provide welfare to one degree or another. All governments foster societies of one quality or another. You can care for your society and still have a free market -- just like you can believe in society and still realize that the burdens of society are ultimately carried by individuals. You use "Communism" and "Marxism" the way Maggie uses the word "society". You don't know what the words mean.
What you're saying about "Christians and whites" --- I don't even want to know, don't care. It seems completely out of line, meaningless, and irrelevant. "Something, something culture war" complaints from the people who're getting culturally left-behind by no one's fault but their own.
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 know i don't have any right to speak up as a big lurker in this community, but dear god, are you expressing yourself aggressively lately. i noticed the attitude in the falklands thread way back. what's bothering you, rl troubles? either way you should maybe take a deep breath before posting, since so many people here look up to admins, with TL being so idiot-proof and all, so no point leaving a bad example...
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.
On April 09 2013 02:45 Aristodemus wrote: Argentina attacked and invaded British soil, yet "Maggies military strikes" make her a villain?
She called Nelson Mandela a terrorist and sided with Pinnochet and the Khymer Rouge. There's no defending that.
Margaret Thatcher stated that "So, you'll find that the more reasonable ones of the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in the future government, but only a minority part. I share your utter horror that these terrible things went on in Kampuchea."
She objected to kicking them out of the UN for the sake of retaining a dialogue with the more reasonable elements within the country while condemning the atrocities.
You think there were reasonable elements within the Khmer Rouge?
I couldn't name names but I'd wager that every institution everywhere has people of varying fervour and corruptability.
So basically there's no one. I did History at Uni and did a reasonable bit on Cambodia. They were as extreme as it gets and as they only lasted for 4 years there was never any time for them to mellow and a Gorbachev to come around. We're talking about a regime who were killing people for wearing glasses.
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.
I actually agree with Thatcher on the hunger strikers and her position is one I agree with to this day. People are walking the streets because of Good Friday who are nothing more than ill-educated killers.
Sometimes you have to swallow a bitter pill to progress though, I suppose.
1. Britain's economy was an absolute shambles because we were recovering from the biggest wars in history. Thatcher implemented a temporary fix which has now come back to hurt us.
Ummm, World War 2 ended in 1945. Britain's economy was in a shambles because Eden and the rest built a huge welfare state supported by a malformed economic apparatus. Most of the world, Britain not excluded, had huge economic boom times in the 1960s that turned into stagflation and other economic badness in the 1970s, because of bad government policies.
3. Sure, everything that you disagree with is idiocy and we all countries should do everything exactly like the USA does. Europeans are all communists or socialists at heart. /sarcasm
Well Strawman leftist, the things I listed as idiocy are in fact idiocy, I made no claims regarding everything I disagree with being idiocy, or that every country should do everything just like the USA, or that all Europeans are all commie pinko reds at heart.
Simply pointing out that one system is evidently vastly superior to both the communist/socialist and social democratic models, as results have shown time and time again.
I like the part where some 20 year old American who wasn't even alive in the 70s/80s thinks he knows more about British society than we do.
And why are some people in this thread claiming that people are only slagging her off now? Are you insane? We've been slagging her off ever since she was elected.
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.
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.
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...
On April 09 2013 02:49 DeepElemBlues wrote: (also list the social democratic countries crashing and burning ((save Germany)) in Europe right now)
the notion that social democratic countries in europe bar germany is crashing and burning is so stupid it is almost provoking, but maybe that was your intent all along.
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.
Someone has been watching Frankie Boyle's stuff it seems My condolences go out to her close family and friends, she has been ill for a while now so it isn't too much of a shock that this has happened. She was a very polarising figure, you either loved what she did or hated her for it. I won't put my thoughts on her in here because I don't want to start an argument.
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.
I'm a liberal and I think she's correct. If we tax the arses off of the rich, what's stopping them from going elsewhere and taking their businesses with them?
Mind you, I think in recent years that ideas has come to some big extremes such as the recent controversy around companies like Google, Amazon and Starbucks avoiding tax.
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...
Point essentially made regarding about the biased/partisan political media in the States if ever one was needed.
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.
I'm a liberal and I think she's correct. If we tax the arses off of the rich, what's stopping them from going elsewhere and taking their businesses with them?
Mind you, I think in recent years that ideas has come to some big extremes such as the recent controversy around companies like Google, Amazon and Starbucks avoiding tax.
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.
I'm a liberal and I think she's correct. If we tax the arses off of the rich, what's stopping them from going elsewhere and taking their businesses with them?
Mind you, I think in recent years that ideas has come to some big extremes such as the recent controversy around companies like Google, Amazon and Starbucks avoiding tax.
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...
On April 09 2013 02:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: Socialists and other creatures of the Left
On April 09 2013 02:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: Well Strawman leftist,
I don't mind listening to arguments on both sides, but I have a strong dislike of hypocracy. If you're going to call people out on being a political bigot, I would hope that you would be decent enough to be better than the ones you accuse.
On topic: So far I've been learning a lot on the subject from both right wing and left wing forums. I'll leave my judgement to the people that lived under her rule. Good bye to an influencial person of the 70's.
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...
On April 09 2013 02:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: Well Strawman leftist,
I don't mind listening to arguments on both sides, but I have a strong dislike of hypocracy. If you're going to call people out on being a political bigot, I would hope that you would be decent enough to be better than the ones you accuse.
On topic: So far I've been learning a lot on the subject from both right wing and left wing forums. I'll leave my judgement to the people that lived under her rule. Good bye to an influencial person of the 70's.
and 80s, 90s, 00s and still the creator of the dominant political consensus in the UK to this day. One of the reasons Thatcher is so decisive is because her legacy was so broad. Modern Britain is her creation, she is no mere historical figure.
She'd been on my bucket list of people to read up on more since high school when she was quoted on a radio ad for the Heritage Foundation. Influential and unforgettable, to be sure, but I don't know enough about her to agree or disagree with her politics.
Did anyone see "The Iron Lady" perchance? Is it relatively accurate, or is it mostly just propaganda?
I always find it a little funny that the "center" left always reviles Thatcher so, given Thatchers reforms more or less established the current political consensus in Britain. She may have been center right in her day, and maybe a few of her reforms were a bad idea or simply poorly managed, but as a sum what she did for the country firmly places her in a position most ostensible centrists could get behind enthusiastically. Prior to Thatcher the State in Britain was positively a leviathan.
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.
I'm a liberal and I think she's correct. If we tax the arses off of the rich, what's stopping them from going elsewhere and taking their businesses with them?
Mind you, I think in recent years that ideas has come to some big extremes such as the recent controversy around companies like Google, Amazon and Starbucks avoiding tax.
Infrastructure? A well-educated, able workforce?
Plenty of other countries have this.
I didn't say that other countries don't, it's just that too often the tax issue is made out to be too simplistic in terms of the high-earners especially. You don't fall into that trap btw, not saying that at all!
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...
On April 09 2013 02:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: Well Strawman leftist,
I don't mind listening to arguments on both sides, but I have a strong dislike of hypocracy. If you're going to call people out on being a political bigot, I would hope that you would be decent enough to be better than the ones you accuse.
On topic: So far I've been learning a lot on the subject from both right wing and left wing forums. I'll leave my judgement to the people that lived under her rule. Good bye to an influencial person of the 70's.
Calling a socialist a socialist is not bigotry, it's identification.
Now saying that all socialists want to put the heads of rich people on pikes or that all socialists are greedy powermongers who simply want to tell everyone what to do, that would be stereotyping at best and bigotry at worst.
Let's please raise our level of critical thinking and reading comprehension from the horrible level of ability public and post-secondary education has given us, and start reading what is actually written. "Strawman leftist" was bad writing which I apologize for, he is a leftist using strawmen.
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.
I'm a liberal and I think she's correct. If we tax the arses off of the rich, what's stopping them from going elsewhere and taking their businesses with them?
Mind you, I think in recent years that ideas has come to some big extremes such as the recent controversy around companies like Google, Amazon and Starbucks avoiding tax.
Everyone agrees with that, but it's oversimplified. It depends on what you tax and how you tax it. For example, increasing income tax by 10% is not going to suddenly make business owners pack up and leave. Increasing corporation ta by 10% might.
She stood for beliefs which were likely conditioned into her by her early life, just like anyone would do. But she fought for these beliefs with conviction and strength, and for that she must be admired. She made good decisions and bad ones, just like everyone would in a position of such importance, and clearly not everyone was ever going to be happy. In my opinion radical change was needed, and suffering is a necessary part of that (potentially not enough mitigation by Thatcher, however), but if people disagree then that's there right. However, celebrating someone's death, as people I know are doing, is absurd and disrespectful - she was no mass murderer or serial rapist. RIP
On April 09 2013 02:49 DeepElemBlues wrote: (also list the social democratic countries crashing and burning ((save Germany)) in Europe right now)
the notion that social democratic countries in europe bar germany is crashing and burning is so stupid it is almost provoking, but maybe that was your intent all along.
Very well, every social democratic country in Europe bar Germany that did not engage in social welfare and tax and banking reforms in the mid-1990s are currently crashing and burning. Those countries that did engage in sensible reform would be the Scandinavian countries, who experienced on a much smaller scale the very problems the Eurozone is facing now. And guess what: they made doing business easier in their countries, they broadened the tax base, they made parts of their welfare systems means-tested, and they crafted their welfare programs in general so as to actually get people back to
Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal, they're already crashed and burned. Greece is electing large numbers of neo-Nazis for Chrissakes.
France is teetering, much of its banking system wrapped up in debts from the above countries. That's the elephant in the room, what will happen to France if the southern Euro countries fully go belly-up.
Eastern Europe is stagnant, minus countries like Estonia that told Keynesians to screw off and find themselves in fine shape.
Germany cannot (or rather, will not) hand out money forever.
The Eurozone is fucked and not even heaven on Earth, Scandinavia, will emerge unscathed. But it will emerge less scathed because of reforms that tightened up the social welfare system probably about the time you stopped shitting in diapers. You probably would not have been happy about them at the time.
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...
On April 09 2013 02:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: Socialists and other creatures of the Left
On April 09 2013 02:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: Well Strawman leftist,
I don't mind listening to arguments on both sides, but I have a strong dislike of hypocracy. If you're going to call people out on being a political bigot, I would hope that you would be decent enough to be better than the ones you accuse.
On topic: So far I've been learning a lot on the subject from both right wing and left wing forums. I'll leave my judgement to the people that lived under her rule. Good bye to an influencial person of the 70's.
Calling a socialist a socialist is not bigotry, it's identification.
Now saying that all socialists want to put the heads of rich people on pikes or that all socialists are greedy powermongers who simply want to tell everyone what to do, that would be stereotyping at best and bigotry at worst.
Let's please raise our level of critical thinking and reading comprehension from the horrible level of ability public and post-secondary education has given us, and start reading what is actually written. "Strawman leftist" was bad writing which I apologize for, he is a leftist using strawmen.
So sadly, no. I was not being hypocritical.
Don't make out that is what your posting in this thread has been like, because it's patently not. You know what you're doing so at least stand by it.
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...
On April 09 2013 02:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: Socialists and other creatures of the Left
On April 09 2013 02:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: Well Strawman leftist,
I don't mind listening to arguments on both sides, but I have a strong dislike of hypocracy. If you're going to call people out on being a political bigot, I would hope that you would be decent enough to be better than the ones you accuse.
On topic: So far I've been learning a lot on the subject from both right wing and left wing forums. I'll leave my judgement to the people that lived under her rule. Good bye to an influencial person of the 70's.
Calling a socialist a socialist is not bigotry, it's identification.
Now saying that all socialists want to put the heads of rich people on pikes or that all socialists are greedy powermongers who simply want to tell everyone what to do, that would be stereotyping at best and bigotry at worst.
Let's please raise our level of critical thinking and reading comprehension from the horrible level of ability public and post-secondary education has given us, and start reading what is actually written. "Strawman leftist" was bad writing which I apologize for, he is a leftist using strawmen.
So sadly, no. I was not being hypocritical.
Calling someone a creature was more what I was refering to, not the socialist bit. Maybe my comprehension of english nuances is terrible but it generally doesn't come across as neutral. But I'll leave this thread before it derails even more.
Everyone agrees with that, but it's oversimplified. It depends on what you tax and how you tax it. For example, increasing income tax by 10% is not going to suddenly make business owners pack up and leave. Increasing corporation ta by 10% might.
You'd be surprised, actually. That would severely decrease the disposable income of a large proportion of the population, so some businesses' custom would suffer, and then they might leave. With economics, you can't really just look at direct or obvious effects of decisions.
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...
On April 09 2013 02:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: Socialists and other creatures of the Left
On April 09 2013 02:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: Well Strawman leftist,
I don't mind listening to arguments on both sides, but I have a strong dislike of hypocracy. If you're going to call people out on being a political bigot, I would hope that you would be decent enough to be better than the ones you accuse.
On topic: So far I've been learning a lot on the subject from both right wing and left wing forums. I'll leave my judgement to the people that lived under her rule. Good bye to an influencial person of the 70's.
Calling a socialist a socialist is not bigotry, it's identification.
Now saying that all socialists want to put the heads of rich people on pikes or that all socialists are greedy powermongers who simply want to tell everyone what to do, that would be stereotyping at best and bigotry at worst.
Let's please raise our level of critical thinking and reading comprehension from the horrible level of ability public and post-secondary education has given us, and start reading what is actually written. "Strawman leftist" was bad writing which I apologize for, he is a leftist using strawmen.
So sadly, no. I was not being hypocritical.
Don't make out that is what your posting in this thread has been like, because it's patently not. You know what you're doing so at least stand by it.
That's nice. I disagree.
Calling someone a creature was more what I was refering to, not the socialist bit. Maybe my comprehension of english nuances is terrible but it generally doesn't come across as neutral. But I'll leave this thread before it derails even more.
Ah well it is a nuance of English, the creature part was not meant pejoratively, I used it more as a synonym for creation of or member. Like, say, a "creature of the Right," would be someone on the Right who has been molded by Right-wing thinking, or simply, a "member" of the "Right" side of the spectrum.
Everyone agrees with that, but it's oversimplified. It depends on what you tax and how you tax it. For example, increasing income tax by 10% is not going to suddenly make business owners pack up and leave. Increasing corporation ta by 10% might.
You'd be surprised, actually. That would severely decrease the disposable income of a large proportion of the population, so some businesses' custom would suffer, and then they might leave. With economics, you can't really just look at direct or obvious effects of decisions.
I'm not so sure. Someone earning 150k (minimum amount for highest income tax band) would net £82.5k instead of 97.5k. It's more likely to decrease their capability to invest than it is to touch their disposable income (even with £40k living expenses they still have enough left over). But the way that most people invest nowdays does not really benefit the economy, so I think it would have little effect.
Edit, above is bad math. They would actually net more than that. They would go from netting 105.5k down to 90.5k.
Everyone agrees with that, but it's oversimplified. It depends on what you tax and how you tax it. For example, increasing income tax by 10% is not going to suddenly make business owners pack up and leave. Increasing corporation ta by 10% might.
You'd be surprised, actually. That would severely decrease the disposable income of a large proportion of the population, so some businesses' custom would suffer, and then they might leave. With economics, you can't really just look at direct or obvious effects of decisions.
I'm not so sure. Someone earning 150k (minimum amount for highest income tax band) would net £82.5k instead of 97.5k. It's more likely to decrease their capability to invest than it is to touch their disposable income (even with £40k living expenses they still have enough left over). But the way that most people invest nowdays does not really benefit the economy, so I think it would have little effect.
It's a different world now, but top-band tax brackets used to be a hell of a lot higher, even in the States under Reagan than they are now and there wasn't some mass-exodus of talent to elsewhere, because of a lot of other factors keeping them staying put.
Granted the world was not as 'globalised' as nowadays and has changed in a multitude of ways, so directly comparing the world of today with then as regards taxation isn't necessarily a prudent exercise to indulge in.
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...
On April 09 2013 02:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: Socialists and other creatures of the Left
On April 09 2013 02:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: Well Strawman leftist,
I don't mind listening to arguments on both sides, but I have a strong dislike of hypocracy. If you're going to call people out on being a political bigot, I would hope that you would be decent enough to be better than the ones you accuse.
On topic: So far I've been learning a lot on the subject from both right wing and left wing forums. I'll leave my judgement to the people that lived under her rule. Good bye to an influencial person of the 70's.
Calling a socialist a socialist is not bigotry, it's identification.
Now saying that all socialists want to put the heads of rich people on pikes or that all socialists are greedy powermongers who simply want to tell everyone what to do, that would be stereotyping at best and bigotry at worst.
Let's please raise our level of critical thinking and reading comprehension from the horrible level of ability public and post-secondary education has given us, and start reading what is actually written. "Strawman leftist" was bad writing which I apologize for, he is a leftist using strawmen.
So sadly, no. I was not being hypocritical.
Don't make out that is what your posting in this thread has been like, because it's patently not. You know what you're doing so at least stand by it.
Calling someone a creature was more what I was refering to, not the socialist bit. Maybe my comprehension of english nuances is terrible but it generally doesn't come across as neutral. But I'll leave this thread before it derails even more.
Ah well it is a nuance of English, the creature part was not meant pejoratively, I used it more as a synonym for creation of or member. Like, say, a "creature of the Right," would be someone on the Right who has been molded by Right-wing thinking, or simply, a "member" of the "Right" side of the spectrum.
You're not wrong, and you clearly know that the nuances are there to be taken either way. Hell it's how Rush Limbaugh and his equivalents on the left operate, they create an incredibly biased tone, but one that is close to impossible to 'prove' the bias in, if they get called on it they simply claim that are misinterpreted.
You're a pretty smart guy, a poster I disagree with on almost anything you stick here mind but whose posts are usually worthy of response. Alas I really couldn't be bothered because it'll descend into standard left vs right mudslinging. You can post in a more neutral tone without losing any of the points you seek to make, which would stimulate better discussion. That's my opinion, take it or leave it.
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...
Point essentially made regarding about the biased/partisan political media in the States if ever one was needed.
English media is almost as bad, it's just our complete morons write for newspapers instead of making TV news shows,
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...
Point essentially made regarding about the biased/partisan political media in the States if ever one was needed.
English media is almost as bad, it's just our complete morons write for newspapers instead of making TV news shows,
You should just be glad that you don't have anywhere from 35 to 70% of your voting population using those shit newspapers as their only source of news (or the only news that they "trust").
On April 09 2013 02:49 DeepElemBlues wrote: (also list the social democratic countries crashing and burning ((save Germany)) in Europe right now)
the notion that social democratic countries in europe bar germany is crashing and burning is so stupid it is almost provoking, but maybe that was your intent all along.
Very well, every social democratic country in Europe bar Germany that did not engage in social welfare and tax and banking reforms in the mid-1990s are currently crashing and burning. Those countries that did engage in sensible reform would be the Scandinavian countries, who experienced on a much smaller scale the very problems the Eurozone is facing now. And guess what: they made doing business easier in their countries, they broadened the tax base, they made parts of their welfare systems means-tested, and they crafted their welfare programs in general so as to actually get people back to
Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal, they're already crashed and burned. Greece is electing large numbers of neo-Nazis for Chrissakes.
France is teetering, much of its banking system wrapped up in debts from the above countries. That's the elephant in the room, what will happen to France if the southern Euro countries fully go belly-up.
Eastern Europe is stagnant, minus countries like Estonia that told Keynesians to screw off and find themselves in fine shape.
Germany cannot (or rather, will not) hand out money forever.
The Eurozone is fucked and not even heaven on Earth, Scandinavia, will emerge unscathed. But it will emerge less scathed because of reforms that tightened up the social welfare system probably about the time you stopped shitting in diapers. You probably would not have been happy about them at the time.
meanwhile,the us and the slightly less conservative uk are burning and crashing.At least theres some of us still doing well,you cant really say the same.
On April 09 2013 02:49 DeepElemBlues wrote: (also list the social democratic countries crashing and burning ((save Germany)) in Europe right now)
the notion that social democratic countries in europe bar germany is crashing and burning is so stupid it is almost provoking, but maybe that was your intent all along.
Very well, every social democratic country in Europe bar Germany that did not engage in social welfare and tax and banking reforms in the mid-1990s are currently crashing and burning. Those countries that did engage in sensible reform would be the Scandinavian countries, who experienced on a much smaller scale the very problems the Eurozone is facing now. And guess what: they made doing business easier in their countries, they broadened the tax base, they made parts of their welfare systems means-tested, and they crafted their welfare programs in general so as to actually get people back to
Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal, they're already crashed and burned. Greece is electing large numbers of neo-Nazis for Chrissakes.
France is teetering, much of its banking system wrapped up in debts from the above countries. That's the elephant in the room, what will happen to France if the southern Euro countries fully go belly-up.
Eastern Europe is stagnant, minus countries like Estonia that told Keynesians to screw off and find themselves in fine shape.
Germany cannot (or rather, will not) hand out money forever.
The Eurozone is fucked and not even heaven on Earth, Scandinavia, will emerge unscathed. But it will emerge less scathed because of reforms that tightened up the social welfare system probably about the time you stopped shitting in diapers. You probably would not have been happy about them at the time.
meanwhile,the us and the slightly less conservative uk are burning and crashing.At least theres some of us still doing well,you cant really say the same.
Incidentally, speaking of the Scandanavian countries, what welfare reforms did your governments bring in that were referenced here?
I find it rather strange that the countries that are regarded as the most left-wing in Europe would be the ones that aren't suffering as badly in this straightened economic climate. Off the top of my head iirc, Sweden's economy is 60% composed of activities that are state-run, be it welfare recipients, public servants or publicly-funded infrastructure works.
this idea that leftists are statists is pretty much missing the point. socially minded politics doesn't have to accept and support inefficient government. instead, figure out how to do things better, but for a broad based public welfare.
On April 09 2013 04:51 oneofthem wrote: this idea that leftists are statists is pretty much missing the point. socially minded politics doesn't have to accept and support inefficient government. instead, figure out how to do things better, but for a broad based public welfare.
Exactly. Most non-idiots of the left have as much of a problem with inefficient spending, with the onset of a dependency culture etc as any on the right do. In fact, some of may get more annoyed, because these are the sticks that are frequently used to beat the entirety of left-wing politics.
It's kind of sad how many people are using this as a place to rile and hate on her even more, family's of ex-miners especially (like they have some basis to complain on).
But RIP she was the best PM we had in a while before and since.
On April 09 2013 05:09 mdb wrote: Why does Scotland hate her?
Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed.
Something the British economy has still to this day not recovered from.
On April 09 2013 05:09 mdb wrote: Why does Scotland hate her?
Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed.
Something the British economy has still to this day not recovered from.
If those industries had been productive then they could have supported themselves and would never have ended up in the hands of the state. The industries died on their own, all Thatcher did was bury the corpses because after a decade of decomposition they were weighing heavily upon the rest of society.
On April 09 2013 05:09 mdb wrote: Why does Scotland hate her?
Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed.
Something the British economythe regions affected have still to this day not recovered from.
The 'economy' has been in rude health at various places. I don't really regard the GDP of a country as necessarily a particularly good indicator of it being in rude health mind.
The increasing divide isn't just between the poor and the wealthy in this country, but is also more and more geographic in basis as well. Perhaps Thatcher didn't desire this and it was an unwelcomed consequence of trying to wrest control back from power-mad unions, but that it has happened is rather beyond dispute.
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.
First of all, I'd like to say I'm offended and disgusted by what you wrote.
You seem to ignore a lot of facts. Irish people have been mistreated by English people in the past over many centuries. I would recommend you deal with these topics with that in mind seeing the side you appear to be on.
When there is such discrimination over many centuries, there will come a time where enough is enough. This happened in Northern Ireland. Due to British rule, civil rights were all but non-existant for Roman Catholics and that alone is atrocious to have happened.
Yes, this lead to conflict. There were civilian casualties.
And you, you try to tell me that these were common criminals? You dare to strip away their cause, their beliefs? That is what disgusts me. These men were brave beyond anything you'll ever fathom.
You should try to realise that things don't revolve around your country. There are other opinions, views, and cultures. And yes, this is still the case in Ireland. Even though your country has tried it's best to destroy that culture over centuries, we still hang on to whatever little we tragically have left.
As you can see, of the total number of casualties, the Republicans have the lowest percentage of civilian casualties. That doesn't relieve the sadness of this but it might shed some light on what actually happened, as you seem to be blind.
Please, think.
I'm sorry for having gone off topic. I found myself very upset by such narrow minded and thoroughly offensive views.
On April 09 2013 05:09 mdb wrote: Why does Scotland hate her?
Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed.
Something the British economy has still to this day not recovered from.
If those industries had been productive then they could have supported themselves and would never have ended up in the hands of the state. The industries died on their own, all Thatcher did was bury the corpses because after a decade of decomposition they were weighing heavily upon the rest of society.
Shutting them down entirely was definitely a better idea than modernising them for sure.
The reason we're doing so well right now and Germany so poorly is because Thatcher ruined all our industry and manufacturing, we were so lucky to have a Prime Minister with such foresight.
On April 09 2013 05:09 mdb wrote: Why does Scotland hate her?
Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed.
Something the British economy has still to this day not recovered from.
If those industries had been productive then they could have supported themselves and would never have ended up in the hands of the state. The industries died on their own, all Thatcher did was bury the corpses because after a decade of decomposition they were weighing heavily upon the rest of society.
to the guy above Although the irish have suffered at the hands of the english, those guys on the hunger strike were murders, aka common criminals, no matter how they wanted to spin it.
On April 09 2013 05:09 mdb wrote: Why does Scotland hate her?
Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed.
Something the British economy has still to this day not recovered from.
If those industries had been productive then they could have supported themselves and would never have ended up in the hands of the state. The industries died on their own, all Thatcher did was bury the corpses because after a decade of decomposition they were weighing heavily upon the rest of society.
You know that is a false analogy. Lets make the analogy of Maggie herself. She died at 87. She developed Alzheimer's earlier, her actions would have been like beheading her in front of her family at the hospital where it was first diagnosed. Swift, brutal, and without a thought for the victims, but at the same time kind of humane and necessary.
I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme.
On April 09 2013 05:09 mdb wrote: Why does Scotland hate her?
Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed.
Something the British economy has still to this day not recovered from.
If those industries had been productive then they could have supported themselves and would never have ended up in the hands of the state. The industries died on their own, all Thatcher did was bury the corpses because after a decade of decomposition they were weighing heavily upon the rest of society.
Shutting them down entirely was definitely a better idea than modernising them for sure.
The reason we're doing so well right now and Germany so poorly is because Thatcher ruined all our industry and manufacturing, we were so lucky to have a Prime Minister with such foresight.
That would have been a helpful comment in the 50s, maybe even in the 60s, not so much by the 70s. Although your plan would need to be fleshed out slightly more than "hey, you know how we're inefficient, unproductive and a complete drain on national resources, why not not be that?".
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.
First of all, I'd like to say I'm offended and disgusted by what you wrote.
You seem to ignore a lot of facts. Irish people have been mistreated by English people in the past over many centuries. I would recommend you deal with these topics with that in mind seeing the side you appear to be on.
When there is such discrimination over many centuries, there will come a time where enough is enough. This happened in Northern Ireland. Due to British rule, civil rights were all but non-existant for Roman Catholics and that alone is atrocious to have happened.
Yes, this lead to conflict. There were civilian casualties.
And you, you try to tell me that these were common criminals? You dare to strip away their cause, their beliefs? That is what disgusts me. These men were brave beyond anything you'll ever fathom.
You should try to realise that things don't revolve around your country. There are other opinions, views, and cultures. And yes, this is still the case in Ireland. Even though your country has tried it's best to destroy that culture over centuries, we still hang on to whatever little we tragically have left.
As you can see, of the total number of casualties, the Republicans have the lowest percentage of civilian casualties. That doesn't relieve the sadness of this but it might shed some light on what actually happened, as you seem to be blind.
Please, think.
I'm sorry for having gone off topic. I found myself very upset by such narrow minded and thoroughly offensive views.
Nope not buying it. Wah wah oh noes you're 'offended'. Being brave is not laudable if what you are doing is killing people, for whatever cause it happens to be. Tying in a modern resident of the UK with historical actions going back hundreds of years, of which he had nothing to do with is ridiculous, guilt-tripping nonsense.
The Civil Rights movement, which had cross-community representation accomplished things in a non-violent manner. The people who participated in that are worthy of respect.
Terrorists and killers, from both sides of the divide don't have to be.
On April 09 2013 05:09 mdb wrote: Why does Scotland hate her?
Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed.
Something the British economy has still to this day not recovered from.
If those industries had been productive then they could have supported themselves and would never have ended up in the hands of the state. The industries died on their own, all Thatcher did was bury the corpses because after a decade of decomposition they were weighing heavily upon the rest of society.
You know that is a false analogy. Lets make the analogy of Maggie herself. She died at 87. She developed Alzheimer's earlier, her actions would have been like beheading her in front of her family at the hospital where it was first diagnosed. Swift, brutal, and without a thought for the victims, but at the same time kind of humane and necessary.
Keeping Maggie alive after she got Alzheimer's didn't bankrupt the nation and force it down a path to inevitable ruin. The two aren't really comparable in my opinion.
On April 09 2013 05:35 Jaaaaasper wrote: to the guy above Although the irish have suffered at the hands of the english, those guys on the hunger strike were murders, aka common criminals, no matter how they wanted to spin it.
On April 09 2013 05:35 Jaaaaasper wrote: to the guy above Although the irish have suffered at the hands of the english, those guys on the hunger strike were murders, aka common criminals, no matter how they wanted to spin it.
one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
No, no, no. This is the most over-quoted sentiment out there, god :p
On April 09 2013 05:09 mdb wrote: Why does Scotland hate her?
Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed.
Something the British economy has still to this day not recovered from.
If those industries had been productive then they could have supported themselves and would never have ended up in the hands of the state. The industries died on their own, all Thatcher did was bury the corpses because after a decade of decomposition they were weighing heavily upon the rest of society.
You know that is a false analogy. Lets make the analogy of Maggie herself. She died at 87. She developed Alzheimer's earlier, her actions would have been like beheading her in front of her family at the hospital where it was first diagnosed. Swift, brutal, and without a thought for the victims, but at the same time kind of humane and necessary.
Keeping Maggie alive after she got Alzheimer's didn't bankrupt the nation and force it down a path to inevitable ruin. The two aren't really comparable in my opinion.
what i am trying to say (admittedly in avery clumsy way) is that yes she had to shut the industry down, but it was done in such a way that left whole sections of the country with absolutely no hope of recovery. Maybe it was the only way, but it was brutal and harsh at the same time.
On April 09 2013 05:35 Jaaaaasper wrote: to the guy above Although the irish have suffered at the hands of the english, those guys on the hunger strike were murders, aka common criminals, no matter how they wanted to spin it.
one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
They killed innocent civilians. I don't think they're in the wrong because I'm English, I just think they're in the wrong. Killing people doesn't meet my ethical standards.
On April 09 2013 05:41 Noro wrote: Sad to see that this thread had to turn into a pointless debate about politics. smh
RIP
I don't mean to pick on you particularly, but what else would you expect from a thread discussing the death of a political figure like her? I've seen this comment a few times and I honestly don't understand. Are you suggesting we should write "RIP" and move on?
On April 09 2013 05:09 mdb wrote: Why does Scotland hate her?
Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed.
Something the British economy has still to this day not recovered from.
If those industries had been productive then they could have supported themselves and would never have ended up in the hands of the state. The industries died on their own, all Thatcher did was bury the corpses because after a decade of decomposition they were weighing heavily upon the rest of society.
You know that is a false analogy. Lets make the analogy of Maggie herself. She died at 87. She developed Alzheimer's earlier, her actions would have been like beheading her in front of her family at the hospital where it was first diagnosed. Swift, brutal, and without a thought for the victims, but at the same time kind of humane and necessary.
Keeping Maggie alive after she got Alzheimer's didn't bankrupt the nation and force it down a path to inevitable ruin. The two aren't really comparable in my opinion.
what i am trying to say (admittedly in avery clumsy way) is that yes she had to shut the industry down, but it was done in such a way that left whole sections of the country with absolutely no hope of recovery. Maybe it was the only way, but it was brutal and harsh at the same time.
The Unions had become power mad at the time. It's a shame that both sides produced a situation in which they had to face off on such an issue, with the people who suffered being the men and women on the ground.
On April 09 2013 05:41 Noro wrote: Sad to see that this thread had to turn into a pointless debate about politics. smh
RIP
I don't mean to pick on you particularly, but what else would you expect from a thread discussing the death of a political figure like her? I've seen this comment a few times and I honestly don't understand. Are you suggesting we should write "RIP" and move on?
Well the BBC has pretty much done that all day, so it's not an entirely atypical response.
On April 09 2013 05:09 mdb wrote: Why does Scotland hate her?
Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed.
Something the British economy has still to this day not recovered from.
If those industries had been productive then they could have supported themselves and would never have ended up in the hands of the state. The industries died on their own, all Thatcher did was bury the corpses because after a decade of decomposition they were weighing heavily upon the rest of society.
Shutting them down entirely was definitely a better idea than modernising them for sure.
The reason we're doing so well right now and Germany so poorly is because Thatcher ruined all our industry and manufacturing, we were so lucky to have a Prime Minister with such foresight.
That would have been a helpful comment in the 50s, maybe even in the 60s, not so much by the 70s. Although your plan would need to be fleshed out slightly more than "hey, you know how we're inefficient, unproductive and a complete drain on national resources, why not not be that?".
There's modernising existing industries, there's retraining and financing/providing incentives for new industries and there's taking a gigantic dump on the working class completely removing their livelyhood and leaving them with nothing.
And the huge hilarity here is that having completely removed the jobs and industries the working class used to do the right wing of this country to this day spend all their time (well the time not spent whining about people who aren't white) complaining about how working class people are work shy. No shit, you were the ones who took their jobs away in the first place. They can't all work in shops if there's no one around with money to buy anything.
On April 09 2013 05:41 Noro wrote: Sad to see that this thread had to turn into a pointless debate about politics. smh
RIP
As long as no one hurls insults and the dialogue is kept diplomatic, there is no reason a thread about the passing of a figure as divisive as Thatcher can't speak on her political legacy or how the world sees her. A thread full of banal "RIP" posts might as well not be a thread at all.
On April 09 2013 05:41 Noro wrote: Sad to see that this thread had to turn into a pointless debate about politics. smh
RIP
I don't mean to pick on you particularly, but what else would you expect from a thread discussing the death of a political figure like her? I've seen this comment a few times and I honestly don't understand. Are you suggesting we should write "RIP" and move on?
Umm.. yes?
It's a thread about her death, not her politics. It's called "Margaret Thatcher dies..."
On April 09 2013 05:09 mdb wrote: Why does Scotland hate her?
Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed.
Something the British economy has still to this day not recovered from.
If those industries had been productive then they could have supported themselves and would never have ended up in the hands of the state. The industries died on their own, all Thatcher did was bury the corpses because after a decade of decomposition they were weighing heavily upon the rest of society.
You know that is a false analogy. Lets make the analogy of Maggie herself. She died at 87. She developed Alzheimer's earlier, her actions would have been like beheading her in front of her family at the hospital where it was first diagnosed. Swift, brutal, and without a thought for the victims, but at the same time kind of humane and necessary.
Keeping Maggie alive after she got Alzheimer's didn't bankrupt the nation and force it down a path to inevitable ruin. The two aren't really comparable in my opinion.
what i am trying to say (admittedly in avery clumsy way) is that yes she had to shut the industry down, but it was done in such a way that left whole sections of the country with absolutely no hope of recovery. Maybe it was the only way, but it was brutal and harsh at the same time.
I agree. She destroyed whole communities and slept well at night protected by her cosy ideological bubble. In hindsight you can make the case that she took it too far and didn't make sufficient efforts to rebuilt the communities that depended upon the national industries that she destroyed. Not a perfect figure by any means but she didn't run British industry into the ground in the three decades before her premiership and blaming their demise on her is absurd.
On April 09 2013 05:41 Noro wrote: Sad to see that this thread had to turn into a pointless debate about politics. smh
RIP
I don't mean to pick on you particularly, but what else would you expect from a thread discussing the death of a political figure like her? I've seen this comment a few times and I honestly don't understand. Are you suggesting we should write "RIP" and move on?
Umm.. yes?
It's a thread about her death, not her politics. It's called "Margaret Thatcher dies..."
Oh alright, thank you. Obviously I disagree (I think there's more value in the debate), but I honestly do appreciate the clarification.
On April 09 2013 05:41 Noro wrote: Sad to see that this thread had to turn into a pointless debate about politics. smh
RIP
I don't mean to pick on you particularly, but what else would you expect from a thread discussing the death of a political figure like her? I've seen this comment a few times and I honestly don't understand. Are you suggesting we should write "RIP" and move on?
Umm.. yes?
It's a thread about her death, not her politics. It's called "Margaret Thatcher dies..."
I thought that at first (note my first comment being "i'm not going to talk about my opinion of her") but actually this is probably what she would have wanted anyway. Thatcher loved political debate.
On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote: I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme.
nelson mandela disagreed for a good part of his struggle.
On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote: I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme.
You've ignored almost everything I wrote.
I tried to let you know that you're possibly not seeing the full picture. You respond with. I'm right, you're wrong.
Are all rebels common criminals? All rebels in all of history? What should one do when they're oppressed and denied basic human rights due to religion or race. They might protest peacefully. Yes, they might in Derry. This is exactly what happened. The Brits opened fire on civilians who were peacefully protesting.
What do people do after such responses to protests, yes violence can happen. Did these people target civilians? Did you look at the link I posted?
England has committed serious atrocities to Ireland. Don't, for the love of God, deny them. These were political prisoners. They were not just murderers targeting civilians.
On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote: I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme.
nelson mandela disagreed for a good part of his struggle.
Fortunately Nelson Mandela is not the objective standard for ethical conduct.
On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote: I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme.
nelson mandela disagreed for a good part of his struggle.
What does Nelson Mandela have to do with it? Other than being a figure that holds the status and love akin to that of a deity and thus not criticised for his behaviour before he denounced violence.
On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote: I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme.
You've ignored almost everything I wrote.
I tried to let you know that you're possibly not seeing the full picture. You respond with. I'm right, you're wrong.
Are all rebels common criminals? All rebels in all of history? What should one do when they're oppressed and denied basic human rights due to religion or race. They might protest peacefully. Yes, they might in Derry. This is exactly what happened. The BritsBritish soldiers who were present at the time opened fire on civilians who were peacefully protesting.
What do people do after such responses to protests, yes violence can happen. Did these people target civilians? Did you look at the link I posted?
England has committed serious atrocities to Ireland. Don't, for the love of God, deny them. These were political prisoners. They were not just murderers targeting civilians.
This kind of us/them mentality is EXACTLY why the Troubles persisted as they did, for so long. I have no time for this kind of partisan dialogue.
On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote: I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme.
You've ignored almost everything I wrote.
I tried to let you know that you're possibly not seeing the full picture. You respond with. I'm right, you're wrong.
Are all rebels common criminals? All rebels in all of history? What should one do when they're oppressed and denied basic human rights due to religion or race. They might protest peacefully. Yes, they might in Derry. This is exactly what happened. The Brits opened fire on civilians who were peacefully protesting.
What do people do after such responses to protests, yes violence can happen. Did these people target civilians? Did you look at the link I posted?
England has committed serious atrocities to Ireland. Don't, for the love of God, deny them. These were political prisoners. They were not just murderers targeting civilians.
I claimed that England committed ethnic cleansing in Ireland and you're now accusing me of denying atrocities and of ignoring your post. Maybe calm down and reread what I wrote.
Not all rebels are common criminals. For example MLK was not a common criminal. The peaceful protestors on Bloody Sunday were not common criminals. The bomb makers murdering innocent civilians were. I don't understand how you're not seeing this line. When you murder innocent people you become a murderer. When you peacefully protest you become a peaceful protester.
On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote: I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme.
nelson mandela disagreed for a good part of his struggle.
Fortunately Nelson Mandela is not the objective standard for ethical conduct.
theres isnt a man in the world,especially in the world of revolutionnaries/freedom fighters who is perfect.(ghandi was far from clear on castes issues)
Thatcher may have destroyed communities and fought the trade unions (that part needed to be done), but outside of that she was a mother, grandmother and family woman. My thoughts go to her family who will miss hear dearly.
On April 09 2013 05:41 Noro wrote: Sad to see that this thread had to turn into a pointless debate about politics. smh
RIP
I don't mean to pick on you particularly, but what else would you expect from a thread discussing the death of a political figure like her? I've seen this comment a few times and I honestly don't understand. Are you suggesting we should write "RIP" and move on?
Umm.. yes?
It's a thread about her death, not her politics. It's called "Margaret Thatcher dies..."
If you allow death to push a person into a territory that is beyond critique, then all you're doing is engaging in a mythologizing idolatry.
On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote: I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme.
You've ignored almost everything I wrote.
I tried to let you know that you're possibly not seeing the full picture. You respond with. I'm right, you're wrong.
Are all rebels common criminals? All rebels in all of history? What should one do when they're oppressed and denied basic human rights due to religion or race. They might protest peacefully. Yes, they might in Derry. This is exactly what happened. The Brits opened fire on civilians who were peacefully protesting.
What do people do after such responses to protests, yes violence can happen. Did these people target civilians? Did you look at the link I posted?
England has committed serious atrocities to Ireland. Don't, for the love of God, deny them. These were political prisoners. They were not just murderers targeting civilians.
I claimed that England committed ethnic cleansing in Ireland and you're now accusing me of denying atrocities and of ignoring your post. Maybe calm down and reread what I wrote.
Not all rebels are common criminals. For example MLK was not a common criminal. The peaceful protestors on Bloody Sunday were not common criminals. The bomb makers murdering innocent civilians were. I don't understand how you're not seeing this line. When you murder innocent people you become a murderer. When you peacefully protest you become a peaceful protester.
My point is that they're not common criminals and that should have had the status of political prisoners.
Taken from wikipedia:
"According to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, a political prisoner is ‘someone who is in prison because they have opposed or criticized the government of their own country’."
Do you disagree that this is what the hunger strikers were?
Just read that quote, then read this:
"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."
Then, read them both again, maybe 5 times, to let it sink in.
You don't have to apologise for the offense you've caused me as long as you actually learn. That is actually all I want.
Please don't ever speak about such culturally delicate topics in the manner you have been in this thread again. Especially when you're arguing on the side of those who tried their hardest to eradicate the other's culture in every form.
I didn't try and wipe out the Irish and I don't intend to so stop acting like I did.
Bobby Sands was a criminal. He committed his crimes for political reasons but it was not his politics that led him to be imprisoned, it was his criminality. You can say "I disagree with the Westminster government's policies" as much as you like and try and change them within the law as much as you like and that will not land you in prison. If it does land you in prison (which it won't in the UK but hypothetically) then you become a political prisoner, a prisoner who is being held on account of your political views. This is not what happened in his case.
What happened to him was he was found guilty of engaging in criminal acts which are criminal regardless of the reason for committing them. He then decided to starve himself. He was not denied food, he denied himself food.
The man was a murderer for killing people and a moron for not understanding the definition of a political prisoner. He then became a very hungy moronic murderer before eventually becoming a dead one. I shed no tears.
If I robbed a house and then claimed that I did it because I'm a communist and I don't believe in private property I'd still be a thief, just a thief with political views. If I burned a medical research lab and then claimed I did it because I don't believe in animal testing for research I'd still be an arsonist, just an arsonist with political views. If I murdered civilians and then claimed I did it because I somehow equated it with a nationalistic struggle I'd still be a murderer, just a murderer with the unimaginable arrogance to believe that my ideological beliefs gave me the right to kill another human being.
On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote: I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme.
You've ignored almost everything I wrote.
I tried to let you know that you're possibly not seeing the full picture. You respond with. I'm right, you're wrong.
Are all rebels common criminals? All rebels in all of history? What should one do when they're oppressed and denied basic human rights due to religion or race. They might protest peacefully. Yes, they might in Derry. This is exactly what happened. The Brits opened fire on civilians who were peacefully protesting.
What do people do after such responses to protests, yes violence can happen. Did these people target civilians? Did you look at the link I posted?
England has committed serious atrocities to Ireland. Don't, for the love of God, deny them. These were political prisoners. They were not just murderers targeting civilians.
I claimed that England committed ethnic cleansing in Ireland and you're now accusing me of denying atrocities and of ignoring your post. Maybe calm down and reread what I wrote.
Not all rebels are common criminals. For example MLK was not a common criminal. The peaceful protestors on Bloody Sunday were not common criminals. The bomb makers murdering innocent civilians were. I don't understand how you're not seeing this line. When you murder innocent people you become a murderer. When you peacefully protest you become a peaceful protester.
My point is that they're not common criminals and that should have had the status of political prisoners.
Taken from wikipedia:
"According to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, a political prisoner is ‘someone who is in prison because they have opposed or criticized the government of their own country’."
Do you disagree that this is what the hunger strikers were?
Just read that quote, then read this:
"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."
Then, read them both again, maybe 5 times, to let it sink in.
You don't have to apologise for the offense you've caused me as long as you actually learn. That is actually all I want.
Please don't ever speak about such culturally delicate topics in the manner you have been in this thread again. Especially when you're arguing on the side of those who tried their hardest to eradicate the other's culture in every form.
Fuck off with your piousness. He can post if he wants, he hasn't shown an ignorance of the issue at any point in his posting.
On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote: I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme.
You've ignored almost everything I wrote.
I tried to let you know that you're possibly not seeing the full picture. You respond with. I'm right, you're wrong.
Are all rebels common criminals? All rebels in all of history? What should one do when they're oppressed and denied basic human rights due to religion or race. They might protest peacefully. Yes, they might in Derry. This is exactly what happened. The Brits opened fire on civilians who were peacefully protesting.
What do people do after such responses to protests, yes violence can happen. Did these people target civilians? Did you look at the link I posted?
England has committed serious atrocities to Ireland. Don't, for the love of God, deny them. These were political prisoners. They were not just murderers targeting civilians.
I claimed that England committed ethnic cleansing in Ireland and you're now accusing me of denying atrocities and of ignoring your post. Maybe calm down and reread what I wrote.
Not all rebels are common criminals. For example MLK was not a common criminal. The peaceful protestors on Bloody Sunday were not common criminals. The bomb makers murdering innocent civilians were. I don't understand how you're not seeing this line. When you murder innocent people you become a murderer. When you peacefully protest you become a peaceful protester.
My point is that they're not common criminals and that should have had the status of political prisoners.
Taken from wikipedia:
"According to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, a political prisoner is ‘someone who is in prison because they have opposed or criticized the government of their own country’."
Do you disagree that this is what the hunger strikers were?
Just read that quote, then read this:
"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."
Then, read them both again, maybe 5 times, to let it sink in.
You don't have to apologise for the offense you've caused me as long as you actually learn. That is actually all I want.
Please don't ever speak about such culturally delicate topics in the manner you have been in this thread again. Especially when you're arguing on the side of those who tried their hardest to eradicate the other's culture in every form.
Fuck off with your piousness. He can post if he wants, he hasn't shown an ignorance of the issue at any point in his posting.
The smugness of your posting is beyond belief.
And besides, kwark is correct. If you are arrested for killing civilians with bombs, then you have no right to be called a political prisoner.
Believe it or not, as a sleeping babe of 3 years old, Wombat had his windows blown in, and front door off its hinges by an IRA bomb, set in the police station over the next street:
'Tuesday 24 March 1992 The Irish Republican Army (IRA) exploded a bomb, estimated at 500 pounds, close to the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) station in Donegall Pass, Belfast. The bomb caused extensive damage to property in the surrounding area.'
On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote: I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme.
You've ignored almost everything I wrote.
I tried to let you know that you're possibly not seeing the full picture. You respond with. I'm right, you're wrong.
Are all rebels common criminals? All rebels in all of history? What should one do when they're oppressed and denied basic human rights due to religion or race. They might protest peacefully. Yes, they might in Derry. This is exactly what happened. The Brits opened fire on civilians who were peacefully protesting.
What do people do after such responses to protests, yes violence can happen. Did these people target civilians? Did you look at the link I posted?
England has committed serious atrocities to Ireland. Don't, for the love of God, deny them. These were political prisoners. They were not just murderers targeting civilians.
I claimed that England committed ethnic cleansing in Ireland and you're now accusing me of denying atrocities and of ignoring your post. Maybe calm down and reread what I wrote.
Not all rebels are common criminals. For example MLK was not a common criminal. The peaceful protestors on Bloody Sunday were not common criminals. The bomb makers murdering innocent civilians were. I don't understand how you're not seeing this line. When you murder innocent people you become a murderer. When you peacefully protest you become a peaceful protester.
My point is that they're not common criminals and that should have had the status of political prisoners.
Taken from wikipedia:
"According to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, a political prisoner is ‘someone who is in prison because they have opposed or criticized the government of their own country’."
Do you disagree that this is what the hunger strikers were?
Just read that quote, then read this:
"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."
Then, read them both again, maybe 5 times, to let it sink in.
You don't have to apologise for the offense you've caused me as long as you actually learn. That is actually all I want.
Please don't ever speak about such culturally delicate topics in the manner you have been in this thread again. Especially when you're arguing on the side of those who tried their hardest to eradicate the other's culture in every form.
Fuck off with your piousness. He can post if he wants, he hasn't shown an ignorance of the issue at any point in his posting.
The smugness of your posting is beyond belief.
And besides, kwark is correct. If you are arrested for killing civilians with bombs, then you have no right to be called a political prisoner.
if there's a conflict you will often have collateral damage, i don't think this is necessarily a crime in itself.
On April 09 2013 06:15 KwarK wrote: I didn't try and wipe out the Irish and I don't intend to so stop acting like I did.
Bobby Sands was a criminal. He committed his crimes for political reasons but it was not his politics that led him to be imprisoned, it was his criminality. You can say "I disagree with the Westminster government's policies" as much as you like and try and change them within the law as much as you like and that will not land you in prison. If it does land you in prison (which it won't in the UK but hypothetically) then you become a political prisoner, a prisoner who is being held on account of your political views. This is not what happened in his case.
What happened to him was he was found guilty of engaging in criminal acts which are criminal regardless of the reason for committing them. He then decided to starve himself. He was not denied food, he denied himself food.
The man was a murderer for killing people and a moron for not understanding the definition of a political prisoner. He then became a very hungy moronic murderer before eventually becoming a dead one. I shed no tears.
If I robbed a house and then claimed that I did it because I'm a communist and I don't believe in private property I'd still be a thief, just a thief with political views. If I burned a medical research lab and then claimed I did it because I don't believe in animal testing for research I'd still be an arsonist, just an arsonist with political views. If I murdered civilians and then claimed I did it because I somehow equated it with a nationalistic struggle I'd still be a murderer, just a murderer with the unimaginable arrogance to believe that my ideological beliefs gave me the right to kill another human being.
I'm sorry if I come across smug. That's not my intention. This is just something that really got to me.
I believe they were political prisoners. They were members of an organised army fighting for nationalism. I would say that this nationalism was political.
As in most wars, there are civilian casualties. I'm not at all trying to condone that.
You can continue to think that these people were just common criminals, targeting civilians. I don't see you developing an open mind any time soon.
As for belittling hunger striking, I wouldn't have expected you to stoop that low. Guess I now know what you're like.
if we are to reduce either justified war killings or civil murders away, we are far better off condemning all killings during war. otherwise you'd be justifying war killing of civilians and only genocidal wars are like that.
On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote: I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme.
You've ignored almost everything I wrote.
I tried to let you know that you're possibly not seeing the full picture. You respond with. I'm right, you're wrong.
Are all rebels common criminals? All rebels in all of history? What should one do when they're oppressed and denied basic human rights due to religion or race. They might protest peacefully. Yes, they might in Derry. This is exactly what happened. The Brits opened fire on civilians who were peacefully protesting.
What do people do after such responses to protests, yes violence can happen. Did these people target civilians? Did you look at the link I posted?
England has committed serious atrocities to Ireland. Don't, for the love of God, deny them. These were political prisoners. They were not just murderers targeting civilians.
I claimed that England committed ethnic cleansing in Ireland and you're now accusing me of denying atrocities and of ignoring your post. Maybe calm down and reread what I wrote.
Not all rebels are common criminals. For example MLK was not a common criminal. The peaceful protestors on Bloody Sunday were not common criminals. The bomb makers murdering innocent civilians were. I don't understand how you're not seeing this line. When you murder innocent people you become a murderer. When you peacefully protest you become a peaceful protester.
My point is that they're not common criminals and that should have had the status of political prisoners.
Taken from wikipedia:
"According to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, a political prisoner is ‘someone who is in prison because they have opposed or criticized the government of their own country’."
Do you disagree that this is what the hunger strikers were?
Just read that quote, then read this:
"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."
Then, read them both again, maybe 5 times, to let it sink in.
You don't have to apologise for the offense you've caused me as long as you actually learn. That is actually all I want.
Please don't ever speak about such culturally delicate topics in the manner you have been in this thread again. Especially when you're arguing on the side of those who tried their hardest to eradicate the other's culture in every form.
Fuck off with your piousness. He can post if he wants, he hasn't shown an ignorance of the issue at any point in his posting.
The smugness of your posting is beyond belief.
And besides, kwark is correct. If you are arrested for killing civilians with bombs, then you have no right to be called a political prisoner.
if there's a conflict you will often have collateral damage, i don't think this is necessarily a crime in itself.
you dont think planting a bomb in a public place is a crime because the people you knew would be there werent the main target?
Hunger striking for a cause, sure. Hunger striking against the Iron Lady because you don't like the uniform you have to wear in prison, fucking idiotic. The guy suicided in a hopeless quest for something utterly trivial, he deserves no respect for that, a vain and futile gesture at the end of a life filled with them.
On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote: I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme.
You've ignored almost everything I wrote.
I tried to let you know that you're possibly not seeing the full picture. You respond with. I'm right, you're wrong.
Are all rebels common criminals? All rebels in all of history? What should one do when they're oppressed and denied basic human rights due to religion or race. They might protest peacefully. Yes, they might in Derry. This is exactly what happened. The Brits opened fire on civilians who were peacefully protesting.
What do people do after such responses to protests, yes violence can happen. Did these people target civilians? Did you look at the link I posted?
England has committed serious atrocities to Ireland. Don't, for the love of God, deny them. These were political prisoners. They were not just murderers targeting civilians.
I claimed that England committed ethnic cleansing in Ireland and you're now accusing me of denying atrocities and of ignoring your post. Maybe calm down and reread what I wrote.
Not all rebels are common criminals. For example MLK was not a common criminal. The peaceful protestors on Bloody Sunday were not common criminals. The bomb makers murdering innocent civilians were. I don't understand how you're not seeing this line. When you murder innocent people you become a murderer. When you peacefully protest you become a peaceful protester.
My point is that they're not common criminals and that should have had the status of political prisoners.
Taken from wikipedia:
"According to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, a political prisoner is ‘someone who is in prison because they have opposed or criticized the government of their own country’."
Do you disagree that this is what the hunger strikers were?
Just read that quote, then read this:
"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."
Then, read them both again, maybe 5 times, to let it sink in.
You don't have to apologise for the offense you've caused me as long as you actually learn. That is actually all I want.
Please don't ever speak about such culturally delicate topics in the manner you have been in this thread again. Especially when you're arguing on the side of those who tried their hardest to eradicate the other's culture in every form.
Fuck off with your piousness. He can post if he wants, he hasn't shown an ignorance of the issue at any point in his posting.
The smugness of your posting is beyond belief.
And besides, kwark is correct. If you are arrested for killing civilians with bombs, then you have no right to be called a political prisoner.
if there's a conflict you will often have collateral damage, i don't think this is necessarily a crime in itself.
you dont think planting a bomb in a public place is a crime because the people you knew would be there werent the main target?
or am i reading this wrong?
There is no room for second guesses in war. Do what you can, take what you can-- bring glory to your nation and die honorably.
I think I'll just leave this here. You can fight against Amnesty International all you want.
In Amnesty International's use of the term, here is an example of a political prisoner: a person accused or convicted of an ordinary crime carried out for political motives, such as murder or robbery carried out to support the objectives of an opposition group.
On April 09 2013 06:43 Atom Cannister wrote: I think I'll just leave this here. You can fight against Amnesty International all you want.
In Amnesty International's use of the term, here is an example of a political prisoner: a person accused or convicted of an ordinary crime carried out for political motives, such as murder or robbery carried out to support the objectives of an opposition group.
I don't need to fight against Amnesty International because Amnesty Internation don't run the prison system, Her Majesty's democratically elected government does. Was Bobby confused about this? Is that why he was so sure he was a political prisoner even after everybody explained to him that he wasn't? The guy was a moron.
On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote: I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme.
You've ignored almost everything I wrote.
I tried to let you know that you're possibly not seeing the full picture. You respond with. I'm right, you're wrong.
Are all rebels common criminals? All rebels in all of history? What should one do when they're oppressed and denied basic human rights due to religion or race. They might protest peacefully. Yes, they might in Derry. This is exactly what happened. The Brits opened fire on civilians who were peacefully protesting.
What do people do after such responses to protests, yes violence can happen. Did these people target civilians? Did you look at the link I posted?
England has committed serious atrocities to Ireland. Don't, for the love of God, deny them. These were political prisoners. They were not just murderers targeting civilians.
I claimed that England committed ethnic cleansing in Ireland and you're now accusing me of denying atrocities and of ignoring your post. Maybe calm down and reread what I wrote.
Not all rebels are common criminals. For example MLK was not a common criminal. The peaceful protestors on Bloody Sunday were not common criminals. The bomb makers murdering innocent civilians were. I don't understand how you're not seeing this line. When you murder innocent people you become a murderer. When you peacefully protest you become a peaceful protester.
My point is that they're not common criminals and that should have had the status of political prisoners.
Taken from wikipedia:
"According to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, a political prisoner is ‘someone who is in prison because they have opposed or criticized the government of their own country’."
Do you disagree that this is what the hunger strikers were?
Just read that quote, then read this:
"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."
Then, read them both again, maybe 5 times, to let it sink in.
You don't have to apologise for the offense you've caused me as long as you actually learn. That is actually all I want.
Please don't ever speak about such culturally delicate topics in the manner you have been in this thread again. Especially when you're arguing on the side of those who tried their hardest to eradicate the other's culture in every form.
Fuck off with your piousness. He can post if he wants, he hasn't shown an ignorance of the issue at any point in his posting.
The smugness of your posting is beyond belief.
And besides, kwark is correct. If you are arrested for killing civilians with bombs, then you have no right to be called a political prisoner.
if there's a conflict you will often have collateral damage, i don't think this is necessarily a crime in itself.
you dont think planting a bomb in a public place is a crime because the people you knew would be there werent the main target?
or am i reading this wrong?
i'm not talking about what i think constitutes a crime, i am talking about what i think we think constitute a crime. it would depend on the scenario, being responsible for the death of a civilian does not always make you a criminal.
On April 09 2013 06:43 Atom Cannister wrote: I think I'll just leave this here. You can fight against Amnesty International all you want.
In Amnesty International's use of the term, here is an example of a political prisoner: a person accused or convicted of an ordinary crime carried out for political motives, such as murder or robbery carried out to support the objectives of an opposition group.
I don't need to fight against Amnesty International because Amnesty Internation don't run the prison system, Her Majesty's democratically elected government does. Was Bobby confused about this? Is that why he was so sure he was a political prisoner even after everybody explained to him that he wasn't? The guy was a moron.
having a democratically elected government, or any kind of government does not give you a free pass to do as you wish against the electorate (hope i am using this word correctly), or that's my opinion at least. isn't that why amnesty exists in the first place?
On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote: I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme.
You've ignored almost everything I wrote.
I tried to let you know that you're possibly not seeing the full picture. You respond with. I'm right, you're wrong.
Are all rebels common criminals? All rebels in all of history? What should one do when they're oppressed and denied basic human rights due to religion or race. They might protest peacefully. Yes, they might in Derry. This is exactly what happened. The Brits opened fire on civilians who were peacefully protesting.
What do people do after such responses to protests, yes violence can happen. Did these people target civilians? Did you look at the link I posted?
England has committed serious atrocities to Ireland. Don't, for the love of God, deny them. These were political prisoners. They were not just murderers targeting civilians.
I claimed that England committed ethnic cleansing in Ireland and you're now accusing me of denying atrocities and of ignoring your post. Maybe calm down and reread what I wrote.
Not all rebels are common criminals. For example MLK was not a common criminal. The peaceful protestors on Bloody Sunday were not common criminals. The bomb makers murdering innocent civilians were. I don't understand how you're not seeing this line. When you murder innocent people you become a murderer. When you peacefully protest you become a peaceful protester.
My point is that they're not common criminals and that should have had the status of political prisoners.
Taken from wikipedia:
"According to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, a political prisoner is ‘someone who is in prison because they have opposed or criticized the government of their own country’."
Do you disagree that this is what the hunger strikers were?
Just read that quote, then read this:
"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."
Then, read them both again, maybe 5 times, to let it sink in.
You don't have to apologise for the offense you've caused me as long as you actually learn. That is actually all I want.
Please don't ever speak about such culturally delicate topics in the manner you have been in this thread again. Especially when you're arguing on the side of those who tried their hardest to eradicate the other's culture in every form.
Fuck off with your piousness. He can post if he wants, he hasn't shown an ignorance of the issue at any point in his posting.
The smugness of your posting is beyond belief.
And besides, kwark is correct. If you are arrested for killing civilians with bombs, then you have no right to be called a political prisoner.
if there's a conflict you will often have collateral damage, i don't think this is necessarily a crime in itself.
you dont think planting a bomb in a public place is a crime because the people you knew would be there werent the main target?
or am i reading this wrong?
i'm not talking about what i think constitutes a crime, i am talking about what i think we think constitute a crime. it would depend on the scenario, being responsible for the death of a civilian does not always make you a criminal.
Fortunately in the case in question the guy was found guilty of a crime and was handed a jail sentence. That ought to have been that but he didn't like wearing the uniform and went on a hunger strike. To get it back on topic, Thatcher stated that her opinion, and that of her government, was that he was not a political prisoner and therefore had to wear his uniform. People like to blame her for this but pretty much any conceivable crime can be subsequently argued to be political, she didn't let him die, he starved himself over it.
On April 09 2013 06:41 KwarK wrote: Hunger striking for a cause, sure. Hunger striking against the Iron Lady because you don't like the uniform you have to wear in prison, fucking idiotic. The guy suicided in a hopeless quest for something utterly trivial, he deserves no respect for that, a vain and futile gesture at the end of a life filled with them.
Idiotic or not his actions were politically motivated and he died a martyr to his cause. The fact that his actions killed innocents does not change that they were political.
Denying the political nature of the actions of the IRA by treating them as common criminals only served to widen the division between communities and make a peaceful resolution harder to attain.
On April 09 2013 06:43 Atom Cannister wrote: I think I'll just leave this here. You can fight against Amnesty International all you want.
In Amnesty International's use of the term, here is an example of a political prisoner: a person accused or convicted of an ordinary crime carried out for political motives, such as murder or robbery carried out to support the objectives of an opposition group.
I don't need to fight against Amnesty International because Amnesty Internation don't run the prison system, Her Majesty's democratically elected government does. Was Bobby confused about this? Is that why he was so sure he was a political prisoner even after everybody explained to him that he wasn't? The guy was a moron.
It should also be noted that AI's use of political prisoner is not the same as prisoner of conscious, which seem to be getting lumped together here.
On April 09 2013 06:43 Atom Cannister wrote: I think I'll just leave this here. You can fight against Amnesty International all you want.
In Amnesty International's use of the term, here is an example of a political prisoner: a person accused or convicted of an ordinary crime carried out for political motives, such as murder or robbery carried out to support the objectives of an opposition group.
I don't need to fight against Amnesty International because Amnesty Internation don't run the prison system, Her Majesty's democratically elected government does. Was Bobby confused about this? Is that why he was so sure he was a political prisoner even after everybody explained to him that he wasn't? The guy was a moron.
having a democratically elected government, or any kind of government does not give you a free pass to do as you wish against the electorate (hope i am using this word correctly), or that's my opinion at least. isn't that why amnesty exists in the first place?
Of course it doesn't. It gives you a free pass to do that which is legal. In this case what the government wished to do was imprison a man who had broken the law as a criminal. Oddly enough he didn't contest that he'd broken the law but he contested being forced to wear a prison uniform. That was literally what he died for.
On April 09 2013 06:43 Atom Cannister wrote: I think I'll just leave this here. You can fight against Amnesty International all you want.
In Amnesty International's use of the term, here is an example of a political prisoner: a person accused or convicted of an ordinary crime carried out for political motives, such as murder or robbery carried out to support the objectives of an opposition group.
I don't need to fight against Amnesty International because Amnesty Internation don't run the prison system, Her Majesty's democratically elected government does. Was Bobby confused about this? Is that why he was so sure he was a political prisoner even after everybody explained to him that he wasn't? The guy was a moron.
You're entitled to your opinion.
I tried to reason with you but it's hopeless.
Amnesty International defines him as a political prisoner so I wouldn't call him a moron for thinking that the right thing would happen. Instead he was treated unjustly by your "Majesty's democratically elected government" and now you continue to see things the same way.
You posted this: "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."
According to Amnesty International, you were wrong here. I wouldn't be surprised if you're wrong in other ways.
Please, come to things with an open mind.
I won't respond any more because you've offended and disgusted me more than I should have let you.
On April 09 2013 06:41 KwarK wrote: Hunger striking for a cause, sure. Hunger striking against the Iron Lady because you don't like the uniform you have to wear in prison, fucking idiotic. The guy suicided in a hopeless quest for something utterly trivial, he deserves no respect for that, a vain and futile gesture at the end of a life filled with them.
Idiotic or not his actions were politically motivated and he died a martyr to his cause. The fact that his actions killed innocents does not change that they were political.
Denying the political nature of the actions of the IRA by treating them as common criminals only served to widen the division between communities and make a peaceful resolution harder to attain.
The cause he died for is a cause celebrated by children around the nation every single "non school uniform day". It's utterly absurd.
On April 09 2013 06:41 KwarK wrote: Hunger striking for a cause, sure. Hunger striking against the Iron Lady because you don't like the uniform you have to wear in prison, fucking idiotic. The guy suicided in a hopeless quest for something utterly trivial, he deserves no respect for that, a vain and futile gesture at the end of a life filled with them.
Idiotic or not his actions were politically motivated and he died a martyr to his cause. The fact that his actions killed innocents does not change that they were political.
Denying the political nature of the actions of the IRA by treating them as common criminals only served to widen the division between communities and make a peaceful resolution harder to attain.
i disagree, the moment people start dying you give up any legitimacy as a political movement.
I cannot believe that even in this day and age so much of the IRA's activity is given such a pass. In an age where we invade entire countries under the guise of preventing terrorist activity.
Atom, Amnesty International defining a political prisoner, does not mean Kwark is ignorant if he disagrees with said definition. He clearly is aware of what a political prisoner is, and felt it inapplicable in this context, or inapplicable in general when said political agitators kill civilians.
And yeah just ignore all that I post, from somebody who lived at the tail-end of the troubles and sees the problems that lionising thugs, on both sides cause.
And just to make it clear, again, Amnesty International calls anyone who jailed for comminting a crime for a political reason a political prisoner, which is not the same definition they use for someone jailed because of their beliefs or expression of those beliefs, a prisoner of conscious.
From Wikipedia under Political Prisoner(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_prisoner) "Some understand the term political prisoner narrowly, equating it with the term prisoner of conscience (POC). Amnesty International campaigns for the release of prisoners of conscience, which include both political prisoners as well as those imprisoned for their religious or philosophical beliefs. To reduce controversy, and as a matter of principle, the organization's policy applies only to prisoners who have not committed or advocated violence."
Alongside Churchill, Thatcher was one of those leaders that made the world stand up and take notice. Condolences to those who appreciated her and to those who will have to suffer through the next two months of Jimmy Carr jokes.
People should do some reading on political prisoner vs prisoner of conscience. Amnesty International applies the term political prisoner very widely, but they advocate for the rights and release of prisoners of conscience, which a person who is arrested for purely political reasons with out committing a violent crime. The below spoilers contains a copy pasted bit of information some people in here need to read. + Show Spoiler +
AI uses the term “political prisoner” broadly. It does not use it, as some others do, to imply that all such prisoners have a special status or should be released. It uses the term only to define a category of prisoners for whom AI demands a fair and prompt trial. In AI's usage, the term includes any prisoner whose case has a significant political element: whether the motivation of the prisoner's acts, the acts in themselves, or the motivation of the authorities. “Political” is used by AI to refer to aspects of human relations related to “politics”: the mechanisms of society and civil order, the principles, organization, or conduct of government or public affairs, and the relation of all these to questions of language, ethnic origin, sex or religion, status or influence (among other factors). The category of political prisoners embraces the category of prisoners of conscience, the only prisoners who AI demands should be immediately and unconditionally released, as well as people who resort to criminal violence for a political motive. In AI's use of the term, here are some examples of political prisoners:
a person accused or convicted of an ordinary crime carried out for political motives, such as murder or robbery carried out to support the objectives of an opposition group; a person accused or convicted of an ordinary crime committed in a political context, such as at a demonstration by a trade union or a peasants' organization; a member or suspected member of an armed opposition group who has been charged with treason or “subversion”.
Governments often say they have no political prisoners, only prisoners held under the normal criminal law. AI however describes cases like the examples given above as “political” and uses the terms “political trial” and “political imprisonment” when referring to them. But by doing so AI does not oppose the imprisonment, except where it further maintains that the prisoner is a prisoner of conscience, or condemn the trial, except where it concludes that it was unfair.
So yes by the broadest possible definition he was a political prisoner, but even according to AI, he was not one who was unjustly arrested. The shooter is tuscon for example, has just as much a right to be called a political prisoner as the hunger striking terrorist we are arguing about.
Thatcher the milk snatcher. My thoughts would be with her kids who have now lost both their parents but I spare no sympathy for her. The damage she did to my country was spectacular.
On April 09 2013 06:41 KwarK wrote: Hunger striking for a cause, sure. Hunger striking against the Iron Lady because you don't like the uniform you have to wear in prison, fucking idiotic. The guy suicided in a hopeless quest for something utterly trivial, he deserves no respect for that, a vain and futile gesture at the end of a life filled with them.
Idiotic or not his actions were politically motivated and he died a martyr to his cause. The fact that his actions killed innocents does not change that they were political.
Denying the political nature of the actions of the IRA by treating them as common criminals only served to widen the division between communities and make a peaceful resolution harder to attain.
The cause he died for is a cause celebrated by children around the nation every single "non school uniform day". It's utterly absurd.
The difference between being recognized as a political prisoner and being labeled a criminal is not trivial for somebody who believes in a cause to the extent that they would willingly give their own lives or take the lives of others.
Just another sign of the differences between us and the rest of the UK...
That's terrible, why weren't we invited? But honestly, as much as it hurts, Scotland is not unique, lots of people in England and Wales loathe her as well.
On April 09 2013 06:43 Atom Cannister wrote: I think I'll just leave this here. You can fight against Amnesty International all you want.
In Amnesty International's use of the term, here is an example of a political prisoner: a person accused or convicted of an ordinary crime carried out for political motives, such as murder or robbery carried out to support the objectives of an opposition group.
I don't need to fight against Amnesty International because Amnesty Internation don't run the prison system, Her Majesty's democratically elected government does. Was Bobby confused about this? Is that why he was so sure he was a political prisoner even after everybody explained to him that he wasn't? The guy was a moron.
having a democratically elected government, or any kind of government does not give you a free pass to do as you wish against the electorate (hope i am using this word correctly), or that's my opinion at least. isn't that why amnesty exists in the first place?
Of course it doesn't. It gives you a free pass to do that which is legal. In this case what the government wished to do was imprison a man who had broken the law as a criminal. Oddly enough he didn't contest that he'd broken the law but he contested being forced to wear a prison uniform. That was literally what he died for.
yes, and it seems to me that there is some discussion to be had on whether or not he has actually broken the law as a criminal, since being responsible for civilian casualties is not always criminal. at least that's what i thought you were discussing.
i don't know either way, i am trying to follow your discussion. i thought you and atom were talking past each other. edit: or i am just plain wrong and one of you is plain right. i don't know, that's why i post.
Just as a point, Thatcher is almost universally despised in the North, particularly in Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, in Northern Ireland amongst the Catholics and in Scotland. It doesn't surprise me there are parties being held to mark her death. For a lot of people, her coffin dodging was beginning to threaten whether they'd see the end of her life.
In dealing with the trade unions, particularly with Scargill, she savagely battered the economy of the North to fund the economy of the South, increased the North/South divide and caused almost permanent damage to the economy of the North without providing any funding to drive private enterprise there.
Then there was the Poll Tax.
Yeah. I don't think any American has the ability to comment on Thatcher's politics.
On April 09 2013 02:21 mdb wrote: I`m very surprised so many british people didnt like her. I`ve always thought that she was highly respected in UK.
She was a polarizing figure to say the least. You either loved her or hated her. Her policies were about as far right as you can swing in a democracy and so people react to her according to their position on the political spectrum. Her personality was in line with her nickname, the Iron lady, hard and unsympathetic. It's not a surprise you're seeing people react to her death as dramatically as they are.
On April 09 2013 07:29 Evangelist wrote:
Yeah. I don't think any American has the ability to comment on Thatcher's politics.
Everyone has the ability to comment on Thatcher's politics. Just because they didn't live it, doesn't mean they can't make educated comments on the effects of her governance.
So many people say they have grievances about Thatcher but most have no idea what she actually did and if they do, they don't really know much more about the political situation in that era...
Margaret Thatcher, who has died following a stroke, was one of the most influential political figures of the 20th Century.
Her legacy had a profound effect upon the policies of her successors, both Conservative and Labour, while her radical and sometimes confrontational approach defined her 11-year period at No 10.
Her term in office saw thousands of ordinary voters gaining a stake in society, buying their council houses and eagerly snapping up shares in the newly privatised industries such as British Gas and BT.
But her rejection of consensus politics made her a divisive figure and opposition to her policies and her style of government led eventually to rebellion inside her party and unrest on the streets. cont
I'm not overly familiar with her politics and life, and I'd rather not commentate on that as an American, but I've read about her decisions in the Falklands war with Argentina, and for those difficult and ballsy decisions alone (sending the fleet across the world), I think she should be commended. RIP
On April 09 2013 02:21 mdb wrote: I`m very surprised so many british people didnt like her. I`ve always thought that she was highly respected in UK.
She was a polarizing figure to say the least. You either loved her or hated her. Her policies were about as far right as you can swing in a democracy and so people react to her according to their position on the political spectrum. Her personality was in line with her nickname, the Iron lady, hard and unsympathetic. It's not a surprise you're seeing people react to her death as dramatically as they are.
Loved her or hated her is one of the phrases i keep hearing and to be honest i feel like it kind of trivializes the effect she had on people (not having a go at you but it has grated on me over the day).
She either made your future bright and saved you from mediocrity or completely destroyed your community.
I have lived in many places throughout England in the last 10 years: London, Leeds, York, Preston, Mansfield and Manchester. You can really see first hand the difference in the society and a huge part of this was Thatcher and her policies. This is not meant as praise or criticism of her, i'm just trying to convey the extraordinary transformative effect she had on England and what it meant to be from the north/south.
On April 09 2013 02:21 mdb wrote: I`m very surprised so many british people didnt like her. I`ve always thought that she was highly respected in UK.
She was a polarizing figure to say the least. You either loved her or hated her. Her policies were about as far right as you can swing in a democracy and so people react to her according to their position on the political spectrum. Her personality was in line with her nickname, the Iron lady, hard and unsympathetic. It's not a surprise you're seeing people react to her death as dramatically as they are.
Loved her or hated her is one of the phrases i keep hearing and to be honest i feel like it kind of trivializes the effect she had on people (not having a go at you but it has grated on me over the day).
She either made your future bright and saved you from mediocrity or completely destroyed your community.
I have lived in many places throughout England in the last 10 years: London, Leeds, York, Preston, Mansfield and Manchester. You can really see first hand the difference in the society and a huge part of this was Thatcher and her policies. This is not meant as praise or criticism of her, i'm just trying to convey the extraordinary transformative effect she had on England and what it meant to be from the north/south.
Well that's the crux of the matter for me. I find those who are pro-Thatcher, are those who aren't as directly affected by her. The policies they admire, are indeed ones that may have helped 'the country', but those on the anti-side more frequently are those whose very communities were destroyed, or the industries in which they earned their crust.
That is not to say either side is right or wrong, but the anti-Thatcher bloc are composed of more people who were directly (I'm referring to those who were alive/mature adults during the time primarily), and those who were pro-Thatcher liked her ideas on a moral/justice kind of level, but were less directly affected.
You see that in the media today, when people get up in arms about 'benefits spongers' on a purely moral outrage basis, when in reality it doesn't actually affect their day-to-day.
A lot of band wagoning hate for Thatcher in here and from people who aren't even old enough to have experienced her time in power
Formulate your own opinions based on your own information before you start copying shit from twitter go ask your parents what it was like before you start joining the herd on leaving passive aggressive messages
On April 09 2013 08:17 Denzil wrote: A lot of band wagoning hate for Thatcher in here and from people who aren't even old enough to have experienced her time in power
Formulate your own opinions based on your own information before you start copying shit from twitter go ask your parents what it was like before you start joining the herd on leaving passive aggressive messages
Age isn't necessarily a good measure of whether someone will know anything about the politician in question in this instance. She is hated enough that it's not unlikely that anyone of a certain age with a knowledge of british politics will have had an opinion on her long before today.
On April 09 2013 08:17 Denzil wrote: A lot of band wagoning hate for Thatcher in here and from people who aren't even old enough to have experienced her time in power
Formulate your own opinions based on your own information before you start copying shit from twitter go ask your parents what it was like before you start joining the herd on leaving passive aggressive messages
I know little about UK politics in the 80s, but subjective experience is not the end all be all. Asking your parents about what it was like is inane. Obviously that depends on the parents, but I will learn nothing if I ask my parents what it was like under Reagan. They know nothing consequential about it.
Subjective experience can be a trap. People need to branch out more in general.
I know you are referring to knee-jerk people who know almost nothing about the subject, but I find your suggestion almost as silly.
On April 09 2013 08:17 Denzil wrote: A lot of band wagoning hate for Thatcher in here and from people who aren't even old enough to have experienced her time in power
Formulate your own opinions based on your own information before you start copying shit from twitter go ask your parents what it was like before you start joining the herd on leaving passive aggressive messages
I know little about UK politics in the 80s, but subjective experience is not the end all be all. Asking your parents about what it was like is inane. Obviously that depends on the parents, but I will learn nothing if I ask my parents what it was like under Reagan. They know nothing consequential about it.
Subjective experience can be a trap. People need to branch out more in general.
I know you are referring to knee-jerk people who know almost nothing about the subject, but I find your suggestion almost as silly.
At least you can both agree, that you should hear what your parents, who lived in that era, have to say. Not necessarily believe them, or trust their subjective experience, just listen to what they have to say. Maybe they remember a lot of news articles from back then on what effects the administration had on the nation, and they can share a lot of genuinely good knowledge and good sources with you, since they cared about being well educated back then (in theory). From that perspective Denzil is making a good common sense point. If someone's parents just give a lot of personal feelings based on her character then yeah, probably best not to judge her policies on that
On April 09 2013 05:09 mdb wrote: Why does Scotland hate her?
I may be wrong but I think Scotland were the first to get poll taxed. They were effectively the 'guinea pigs' for the whole scheme and despite the fact that it turned out a lot of Scots legitimately couldn't sustain such a tax rate, the Tories still forced it on them anyway.
Scotland is rather unfriendly towards her party on the whole, which may be as a consequence of Thatcher, but probably reflects a bit more of a left-leaning political environment than elsewhere in the UK as well.
Many of those celebrating her passing marked their tweets with the hashtag #nowthatchersdead - causing panic among fans of the US singer Cher, as some took this to read: "Now that Cher's dead".
To be honest, I'm surprised that there are so many people openly celebrating her death. I was obviously never directly affected by her, being born late into her incumbency in a totally different country, but... I don't know... it seems like all the normal social limits have completely broken down.
On April 09 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote: 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.
It's simply not out of context. The context was her entire life in politics. That quote is almost the definition of what the woman stood for.
On April 09 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote: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.
A little thinking and a little literacy might lead a person to neo-liberal economics, the trickle-down theory, and Thatcher-Reagan economics. A moderate amount of both things almost inescapably leads to the conclusion that these things are abominations.
On April 09 2013 14:02 RowdierBob wrote: She won three elections didn't she? Surely she must have had a large groundswell of support for what she was doing?
Hitler won an election. That's what propaganda can do.
On April 09 2013 02:30 KwarK wrote: 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.
Familiar talking point of non-thinkers, but here is the reality:
The whole point that the Left is making is that it doesn't NEED to be the case that in a first world, 21st century society we can't afford to provide a loaf of bread and glass of water without families feeling the burden.
In fact, Labour have recently put forward a policy by which everyone who's long-term unemployed is guaranteed a minimum wage job. How is it going to be funded? Not by taxing families who can hardly afford to support themselves, but by taxing bankers' bonuses.
You're taking a valid concern of minimum-wagers, amplifying it a thousandfold, and generalizing it to the entire socio-economic ladder and all income tiers. Even though, manifestly, people above a certain threshold of income are not going to be "scraping by" even if they're taxed for every penny above the threshold (which incidentally nobody has proposed).
Despite your scaremongering about the 70s, unemployment in that decade averaged around 2% compared with 9.1% under Thatcher. Crime was far higher in the 80s. The 70s had its strikes, but the 80s had its riots. You can produce figures about GDP growth being marginally higher in the 80s (while unemployment was through the roof). But the truth is that GDP is only a superficial measure of standard of living at best.
Her policies were the economic equivalent of a medieval quack doctor trepanning the patient to test out his pet theory on the four humours. The most drastic and extreme steps prosecuted in the most ruthless fashion by the doctor, even though he doesn't have any compelling evidence that his abstruse procedure is likely to improve the condition of the patient.
On April 09 2013 14:02 RowdierBob wrote: She won three elections didn't she? Surely she must have had a large groundswell of support for what she was doing?
Hitler won an election. That's what propaganda can do.
More like propaganda can make you think that Hitler won an election. But it'd be ludicrous to claim that Hitler "won" an election by any democratic standard.
On April 09 2013 16:06 Warlock40 wrote: More like propaganda can make you think that Hitler won an election. But it'd be ludicrous to claim that Hitler "won" an election by any democratic standard.
He still might have won even without the thugs at polls. Look up the word "demagogue".
The Conservative prime minister had dismissed the ANC as "a typical terrorist organisation" and refused to back sanctions against the apartheid government, pursuing instead a policy of "constructive engagement". South Africa was then seen as a vital ally in stemming communist expansion.
I guess I don't actually need to say what I think of her.
I didn't like Margaret Thatcher, and I think it's ludicrous to suggest people born after her time shouldn't have an opinion on the matter, or express it. I've spoken to a lot of people whose families she and her government totally ruined, in some cases for generations. I'm lucky enough to be from a steel-making town where everything wasn't just ruined immediately, but a lot of people not far from here and a lot of the nearby towns weren't so lucky.
The thing is though: Margaret Thatcher died on Monday an old woman riddled with dementia and health issues. She had no power any more, and while you can't deny she had a lasting impact, she was far from ever being impactful politically ever again.
Margaret Thatcher died yesterday, but the Iron Lady died a long time ago. Perhaps when she was ousted from office, perhaps when dementia took hold, certainly some time between then. Either way, there comes a point where her death stops representing any kind of victory over the woman who ruined so many lives and just becomes a personal loss to her family and friends. She'd gone long past that point and that's why I find actively celebrating her death very strange, if slightly understandable when you see the damage she caused.
I wouldn't wish death or dementia on my worst enemy though.
Could anyone direct me to a set of rational, well-explained reasons as to why Thatcher was hated? All the rage on the internet isn't helping at all. Thanks!
On April 09 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote: I am very, very aware of the ethnic cleansing carried out by England in Ireland, along with the rest of it. I understand that the plantations were a deliberate attempt to eradicate the Catholic Irish due to seeing them as a potential threat during the religious wars. I know my history and I know England was in the wrong for being in Ireland.
However that isn't relevant whether or not a man who uses bombs to murder civilians is a murderer or not. The peace process must be peaceful or it will have no legitimacy at all. I don't murder people not because I'm not brave enough to but because I do not think I have the right, no matter how strongly held my convictions might be, to take the life of another. A murderer does. It is narcissism at its most violent, criminal extreme.
You've ignored almost everything I wrote.
I tried to let you know that you're possibly not seeing the full picture. You respond with. I'm right, you're wrong.
Are all rebels common criminals? All rebels in all of history? What should one do when they're oppressed and denied basic human rights due to religion or race. They might protest peacefully. Yes, they might in Derry. This is exactly what happened. The Brits opened fire on civilians who were peacefully protesting.
What do people do after such responses to protests, yes violence can happen. Did these people target civilians? Did you look at the link I posted?
England has committed serious atrocities to Ireland. Don't, for the love of God, deny them. These were political prisoners. They were not just murderers targeting civilians.
I claimed that England committed ethnic cleansing in Ireland and you're now accusing me of denying atrocities and of ignoring your post. Maybe calm down and reread what I wrote.
Not all rebels are common criminals. For example MLK was not a common criminal. The peaceful protestors on Bloody Sunday were not common criminals. The bomb makers murdering innocent civilians were. I don't understand how you're not seeing this line. When you murder innocent people you become a murderer. When you peacefully protest you become a peaceful protester.
My point is that they're not common criminals and that should have had the status of political prisoners.
Taken from wikipedia:
"According to the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, a political prisoner is ‘someone who is in prison because they have opposed or criticized the government of their own country’."
Do you disagree that this is what the hunger strikers were?
Just read that quote, then read this:
"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."
Then, read them both again, maybe 5 times, to let it sink in.
You don't have to apologise for the offense you've caused me as long as you actually learn. That is actually all I want.
Please don't ever speak about such culturally delicate topics in the manner you have been in this thread again. Especially when you're arguing on the side of those who tried their hardest to eradicate the other's culture in every form.
Fuck off with your piousness. He can post if he wants, he hasn't shown an ignorance of the issue at any point in his posting.
The smugness of your posting is beyond belief.
And besides, kwark is correct. If you are arrested for killing civilians with bombs, then you have no right to be called a political prisoner.
if there's a conflict you will often have collateral damage, i don't think this is necessarily a crime in itself.
Of course it is a crime. You knowingly targeted civilians.
On April 09 2013 17:15 ThaSlayer wrote: Could anyone direct me to a set of rational, well-explained reasons as to why Thatcher was hated? All the rage on the internet isn't helping at all. Thanks!
Again, as someone said above, think of what the republicans think of Obama, well the north of Britain and the less central left of Britain, pretty much have that attitude to Thatcher. The fact that twice the Godwin Law has been invoked by those very strongly against thatcher kind of tells you how rational they are.
The death of Lady Thatcher makes it opportune to consider the difference that her governments made to the UK's economic performance. This column is an ‘economic obituary’.
The policies of the Conservative governments led by Margaret Thatcher between 1979 and 1990 remain highly controversial more than 20 years later. In many respects, they represented a sharp break with the earlier postwar period and this was certainly true of supply-side policies relevant to growth performance. Reforms of fiscal policy were made including the restructuring of taxation by increasing VAT while reducing income-tax rates and, notably, by indexing transfer payments to prices rather than wages while aiming to restore a balanced budget. Industrial policy was downsized as subsidies were cut and privatisation of state-owned businesses was embraced while deregulation, including most notably of financial markets with the ‘Big Bang’ in 1986, was promoted. Legal reforms of industrial relations further reduced trade union bargaining power which had initially been undermined by rising unemployment. In general, these changes were accepted rather than reversed by Labour after 1997. ...
Conclusion
In sum, Thatcherism was a partial solution to the problems which had led to earlier underperformance, in particular, those that had arisen from weak competition (Crafts 2012). The reforms encouraged the effective diffusion of new technology rather than greater invention and worked more through reducing inefficiency than promoting investment-led growth. They addressed relative economic decline through improving TFP and reducing the NAIRU. At the same time, the short-term implications were seriously adverse for many workers as unemployment rose and manufacturing rapidly shed two million jobs while income inequality surged, to no small extent as a result of benefit reforms.
Indeed, any judgement on Thatcherism turns heavily on value judgements concerning the relative importance of income distribution and economic growth as policy objectives. The 1980s saw a very rapid increase in the Gini coefficient by about nine percentage points, which has turned out to be largely permanent. Ultimately, the Thatcher experiment was about making a liberal market economy work better. There will be those who think a German-style coordinated market economy is preferable. That was not really an option available to Mrs Thatcher but in any event it was hardly a vision of which she approved.
Edit: Posting this from an unrelated article. It seems that the relative decline of industry (or manufacturing at least) in the UK was nothing remarkable: + Show Spoiler +
if long term socialand human capital loss is a hotpoint in economics you'll see a sentence that reads something like "she did not provide for transitional resources for broad swath of workers and the regional economy."
On April 09 2013 17:15 ThaSlayer wrote: Could anyone direct me to a set of rational, well-explained reasons as to why Thatcher was hated? All the rage on the internet isn't helping at all. Thanks!
Again, as someone said above, think of what the republicans think of Obama, well the north of Britain and the less central left of Britain, pretty much have that attitude to Thatcher. The fact that twice the Godwin Law has been invoked by those very strongly against thatcher kind of tells you how rational they are.
Nothing you said here is correct, and this kind of blanket statement from somebody who has no idea what they're talking about isn't appreciated.
On April 09 2013 14:02 RowdierBob wrote: She won three elections didn't she? Surely she must have had a large groundswell of support for what she was doing?
Hitler won an election. That's what propaganda can do.
That's not entirely the same situation is it?
Thatcher never used propaganda atleast not to the extent hitler did and if people hated her that much she wouldn't have got in for a second term, let alone a third.
The people here demanding respect here need to actually do some reading. She was a torturous witch that ruthlessly ignored the working-class in the UK. There was no love lost when she passed, hopefully she's in a terrible place with Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet, Pol Pot and all the other unforgiving despots of the 20th century.
On April 09 2013 18:38 cozzE wrote: The people here demanding respect here need to actually do some reading. She was a torturous witch that ruthlessly ignored the working-class in the UK. There was no love lost when she passed, hopefully she's in a terrible place with Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet, Pol Pot and all the other unforgiving despots of the 20th century.
There are plenty of working class people who also liked thatcher, she was by no means a despot just ridiculous rhetoric you are throwing around.
On April 09 2013 18:38 cozzE wrote: The people here demanding respect here need to actually do some reading. She was a torturous witch that ruthlessly ignored the working-class in the UK. There was no love lost when she passed, hopefully she's in a terrible place with Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet, Pol Pot and all the other unforgiving despots of the 20th century.
They should also avoid reading ridiculously biased materials like you clearly have. I am working class from an ex-mining town and should therefore apparently hate her. I don't, along with many people I know living here.
On April 09 2013 18:38 cozzE wrote: The people here demanding respect here need to actually do some reading. She was a torturous witch that ruthlessly ignored the working-class in the UK. There was no love lost when she passed, hopefully she's in a terrible place with Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet, Pol Pot and all the other unforgiving despots of the 20th century.
A person telling other people to do some actually reading proceeds to place Thatcher amongst Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet and Pol Pot.
I was planning to stay well clear from this discussion, but this comment was a real eyebrow raiser.
On April 09 2013 17:15 ThaSlayer wrote: Could anyone direct me to a set of rational, well-explained reasons as to why Thatcher was hated? All the rage on the internet isn't helping at all. Thanks!
On April 09 2013 18:48 Ysellian wrote: A person telling other people to do some actually reading proceeds to place Thatcher amongst Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet and Pol Pot.
I was planning to stay well clear from this discussion, but this comment was a real eyebrow raiser.
It's funny because she supported and mingled with two of them.
On April 09 2013 18:18 Qikz wrote: Thatcher never used propaganda atleast not to the extent hitler did and if people hated her that much she wouldn't have got in for a second term, let alone a third.
Thatcher never used propaganda? Where did you get this strange idea?
Thatcher was backed by all the tabloids, as is current government under David Cameron.
Conservative governments almost never win elections through sound economic policy, but purely through stirring hatred, whipping up fear, and appealing to human chauvinism. Without the Falklands War of '82 and the scaremongering about nuclear disarmament and a pre-emptive strike by the Soviets prior to the '87 election, she would never have stood a chance of winning three election.
On April 09 2013 18:38 cozzE wrote: The people here demanding respect here need to actually do some reading. She was a torturous witch that ruthlessly ignored the working-class in the UK. There was no love lost when she passed, hopefully she's in a terrible place with Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet, Pol Pot and all the other unforgiving despots of the 20th century.
A person telling other people to do some actually reading proceeds to place Thatcher amongst Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet and Pol Pot.
I was planning to stay well clear from this discussion, but this comment was a real eyebrow raiser.
Massive amounts of hate seems to be directed at Margaret Thatcher. Maybe I'm ignorant, but I do not think that any disrespect is needed against a lady who served as Britain's prime minister for more than a decade.
On April 09 2013 18:38 cozzE wrote: The people here demanding respect here need to actually do some reading. She was a torturous witch that ruthlessly ignored the working-class in the UK. There was no love lost when she passed, hopefully she's in a terrible place with Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet, Pol Pot and all the other unforgiving despots of the 20th century.
A person telling other people to do some actually reading proceeds to place Thatcher amongst Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet and Pol Pot.
I was planning to stay well clear from this discussion, but this comment was a real eyebrow raiser.
On April 09 2013 18:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Edit: Posting this from an unrelated article. It seems that the relative decline of industry (or manufacturing at least) in the UK was nothing remarkable:
Your graph doesn't count agriculture and the energy sector. Accounting for these things, France's and the USA's decline has been much less steep than that of the UK.
And it's not just about the relative decline of industry. It declined just as surely under New Labour. The difference is that they had an alternative (education) which was at least superficially plausible at the time. Thatcher did not give an alternative and instead presided over a decade with average unemployment of 9.1% (up from 2% in the 70s).
On April 09 2013 17:15 ThaSlayer wrote: Could anyone direct me to a set of rational, well-explained reasons as to why Thatcher was hated? All the rage on the internet isn't helping at all. Thanks!
Again, as someone said above, think of what the republicans think of Obama, well the north of Britain and the less central left of Britain, pretty much have that attitude to Thatcher. The fact that twice the Godwin Law has been invoked by those very strongly against thatcher kind of tells you how rational they are.
Nothing you said here is correct, and this kind of blanket statement from somebody who has no idea what they're talking about isn't appreciated.
How is nothing i said here correct? Right after you posted this, again someone immediately referenced Hitler, again. How is this a blanket statement? Explain how i have no idea what I am talking about?(I suspect this just translated to, you don't agree with me therefore you know nothing) The irony in calling my post a blank statement lol.
While Thatcher was/is a very polarising and derisive figure within UK Politics and the UK as a whole and a discussion on her legacy is completely valid. Her death does not add nor retract any action she has done before which is why I am bewildered at the north's general "partying" at her death. Thatcher's death does not make the current economic position of the UK any better and partying definitely does not give back what communities and jobs they had before her reign.
On April 09 2013 17:15 ThaSlayer wrote: Could anyone direct me to a set of rational, well-explained reasons as to why Thatcher was hated? All the rage on the internet isn't helping at all. Thanks!
Again, as someone said above, think of what the republicans think of Obama, well the north of Britain and the less central left of Britain, pretty much have that attitude to Thatcher. The fact that twice the Godwin Law has been invoked by those very strongly against thatcher kind of tells you how rational they are.
Nothing you said here is correct, and this kind of blanket statement from somebody who has no idea what they're talking about isn't appreciated.
How is nothing i said here correct? Right after you posted this, again someone immediately referenced Hitler, again. How is this statement blank? Explain how i have no idea what I am talking about?(I suspect this just translated to, you don't agree with me therefore you know nothing) The irony in calling my post a blank statement lol.
He said that your statement was a blanket statement meaning it overgeneralised to a point of nearly creating a hyperbole of the situation. A blank statement would imply that your words meant nothing which it obviously doesn't.
On April 09 2013 17:15 ThaSlayer wrote: Could anyone direct me to a set of rational, well-explained reasons as to why Thatcher was hated? All the rage on the internet isn't helping at all. Thanks!
Again, as someone said above, think of what the republicans think of Obama, well the north of Britain and the less central left of Britain, pretty much have that attitude to Thatcher. The fact that twice the Godwin Law has been invoked by those very strongly against thatcher kind of tells you how rational they are.
Nothing you said here is correct, and this kind of blanket statement from somebody who has no idea what they're talking about isn't appreciated.
How is nothing i said here correct? Right after you posted this, again someone immediately referenced Hitler, again. How is this statement blank? Explain how i have no idea what I am talking about?(I suspect this just translated to, you don't agree with me therefore you know nothing) The irony in calling my post a blank statement lol.
Calling everyone who lives in the north and leans to the left irrational. Yup, you seem pretty knowledgable.
On April 09 2013 18:55 NeThZOR wrote: Massive amounts of hate seems to be directed at Margaret Thatcher. Maybe I'm ignorant, but I do not think that any disrespect is needed against a lady who served as Britain's prime minister for more than a decade.
RIP Baroness Thatcher.
She did not serve Britain, she served a certain subset of society only, and if you were not in the subset you got crushed. She destroyed Scotland, Wales and the North of England with her policies, only the south of England benefited ( Tory Heartland) The police and press became her weapon of suppression and control.
Ultra right wing and dogmatic sums her up. Convection politics at its very worst, even her own party got sick of her in the end and replaced her during her term of office
It's also worth noting that these parties have been planned for a long time. The first time I saw one planned was 2003.
As to Thatcher winning three elections, it would probably be more accurate to say that she won one and the opposition lost two, though granted the second is perhaps arguable because of the nationalist stirrings around the falklands issue.
Being a controversial figure itself proves that she did something good at least for some as well as something bad for others. It's probably better than having an ordinary mediocre politician who does nothing good nor bad, showing no direction.
On April 09 2013 17:15 ThaSlayer wrote: Could anyone direct me to a set of rational, well-explained reasons as to why Thatcher was hated? All the rage on the internet isn't helping at all. Thanks!
Again, as someone said above, think of what the republicans think of Obama, well the north of Britain and the less central left of Britain, pretty much have that attitude to Thatcher. The fact that twice the Godwin Law has been invoked by those very strongly against thatcher kind of tells you how rational they are.
Nothing you said here is correct, and this kind of blanket statement from somebody who has no idea what they're talking about isn't appreciated.
How is nothing i said here correct? Right after you posted this, again someone immediately referenced Hitler, again. How is this statement blank? Explain how i have no idea what I am talking about?(I suspect this just translated to, you don't agree with me therefore you know nothing) The irony in calling my post a blank statement lol.
He said that your statement was a blanket statement meaning it overgeneralised to a point of nearly creating a hyperbole of the situation. A blank statement would imply that your words meant nothing which it obviously doesn't.
Yeah i didn't read it quite right, i apologize. I don't think i really used any hyperbole, when people have been comparing Thatcher to Hitler I think I'm probably being pretty understated to the contrary.
On April 09 2013 17:15 ThaSlayer wrote: Could anyone direct me to a set of rational, well-explained reasons as to why Thatcher was hated? All the rage on the internet isn't helping at all. Thanks!
Again, as someone said above, think of what the republicans think of Obama, well the north of Britain and the less central left of Britain, pretty much have that attitude to Thatcher. The fact that twice the Godwin Law has been invoked by those very strongly against thatcher kind of tells you how rational they are.
Nothing you said here is correct, and this kind of blanket statement from somebody who has no idea what they're talking about isn't appreciated.
How is nothing i said here correct? Right after you posted this, again someone immediately referenced Hitler, again. How is this statement blank? Explain how i have no idea what I am talking about?(I suspect this just translated to, you don't agree with me therefore you know nothing) The irony in calling my post a blank statement lol.
Calling everyone who lives in the north and leans to the left irrational. Yup, you seem pretty knowledgable.
I compared most of the north, not all, because granted there are a minority that like thatcher i am sure, to the republicans view on Obama. I also compared the less central left, which you translated to leans to the left somehow. And then i went on to say that the very strongly apposed, not the north or centre left, to thatcher are irrational, maybe i should have used the word usually. I certainly didn't call "all of the north irrational". And having an opinion that's incorrect doesn't make me un-knowledgeable either, so i don't really think you have a point.
Yes she did have a friendship with Pinochet, but the situation is much more complex than maggie loved Pinochet. Lots of people have friends who do things, grave things, they don't approve of. If one of you close friends did something you were appalled at it doesn't mean that they stopped ever being your friend, and most likely you wouldn't cut contact you'd try and talk to them about it. Now I'm not totally defending maggie's relationship with this monster, but I am sure it's not just black and white. For a start he had an important part in playing in helping Britain during the Falklands war, and that's where it started. She owed him some gratitude purely because of that. As for the atrocities he committed, well historical hindsight is a beautiful thing. Unless you are Margret Thatcher yourself you cannot know how much she knew and how much she didn't believe because she didn't want to about a friend.
As for Pol Pot, again this was a complex situation that looks awful in hindsight, I'm sure mistakes were made, in the same way the US practically armed and taught the Tali Ban too. When there is civil unrest and fighting in countries, often rebels or government get backed and they turn out to be oppressors, but again this is something that one can only see in hindsight. If you look at the time, the UN recognized Pol Pot as a legitimate leader and government and so did China, so it wasn't as if everyone but her was aware and against him.
These are nevertheless blotches on her governments record, and in reality a lot worse than what she supposedly did to the miners. How much she is actually to blame for these relationships is hard for one to say outside of the time or with-out proper historical political knowledge.
Lots of short sighted people, brainwashed by effects her actions had on their immediate surrounding areas where they live or lived are the one's who claim to hate her. They fail to see the bigger picture.
Politics is full of men, ironically it was the one without balls who had the balls necessary to make the difficult decisions. She done the country a great service and it's sickening the hate she receives.
On April 09 2013 20:36 sinii wrote: Lots of short sighted people, brainwashed by effects her actions had on their immediate surrounding areas where they live or lived are the one's who claim to hate her. They fail to see the bigger picture.
Politics is full of men, ironically it was the one without balls who had the balls necessary to make the difficult decisions. She done the country a great service and it's sickening the hate she receives.
And lots of people in London or the home counties like her. I don't say that they are brainwashed, because i am rational. The bigger picture is that she transferred all the wealth and power in this country to certain areas (her favourite ones) and left everyone else to rot. Brainwashed is just your way of saying you don't agree, probably because you live in an area that has benefited. Its naive to think that the places REALLY badly affected by Thatcher will recover. They haven't yet, and i don't see it happening any time soon.
On April 09 2013 20:36 sinii wrote: Lots of short sighted people, brainwashed by effects her actions had on their immediate surrounding areas where they live or lived are the one's who claim to hate her. They fail to see the bigger picture.
Bigger picture: The destruction of the British economy, you mean?
The economy was rotting, the unions were way too powerful and she took the decisions that led to recovery. Comparing her to tyrants is laughable. All the north does not hate her either, believe me.
On April 09 2013 20:36 sinii wrote: Lots of short sighted people, brainwashed by effects her actions had on their immediate surrounding areas where they live or lived are the one's who claim to hate her. They fail to see the bigger picture.
Politics is full of men, ironically it was the one without balls who had the balls necessary to make the difficult decisions. She done the country a great service and it's sickening the hate she receives.
And lots of people in London or the home counties like her. I don't say that they are brainwashed, because i am rational. The bigger picture is that she transferred all the wealth and power in this country to certain areas (her favourite ones) and left everyone else to rot. Brainwashed is just your way of saying you don't agree, probably because you live in an area that has benefited. Its naive to think that the places REALLY badly affected by Thatcher will recover. They haven't yet, and i don't see it happening any time soon.
I use the term brainwashed because that is effectively where the hate is coming from, people in these areas got told by their parents about how bad she was how she shut down all the mine etc etc.
They don't see the bigger picture, the mines were losing the country money. It was an unsustainable business and it was far too heavily dragged down with union rights and self entitled workers. Keeping the mines going would have made the entire country far worse off. There was literally no option but to do what she did, and she had to live with the hate she recieved for it.
On April 09 2013 20:36 sinii wrote: Lots of short sighted people, brainwashed by effects her actions had on their immediate surrounding areas where they live or lived are the one's who claim to hate her. They fail to see the bigger picture.
Bigger picture: The destruction of the British economy, you mean?
Well your clearly well informed and educated on the subject.... not.
On April 09 2013 20:36 sinii wrote: Lots of short sighted people, brainwashed by effects her actions had on their immediate surrounding areas where they live or lived are the one's who claim to hate her. They fail to see the bigger picture.
Bigger picture: The destruction of the British economy, you mean?
Well your clearly well informed and educated on the subject.... not.
On April 09 2013 21:42 Wombat_NI wrote: Lol, posting a response in the manner of Bill and Ted is hardly a particularly good riposte is it?
It's a total waste of time arguing about politics on TL. As soon as you posted anything about this at length you will have x number of clowns from America or Sweden born in the 90s who couldn't even point to Newcastle, Sunderland or Manchester on a map telling me how what she did was necessary for the British economy and how the unions were too powerful in 70s and 80s Britain which they only discovered after they read the post above their own.
Kind of kept silent the past 10` or so pages to see the average opinion of the demographic and I feel a bit disheartened upon reading. I, for some reason, assumed that TL forum would be filled with more educated individuals and as such I waited to see the majority at least argue in proper form of her policies/wrongs/rights and so forth but alas it isn't the fact that many of you are disagreeing with her policies and making note that she isn't worthy of praise for x,y and z reason but its the fact many of you have no idea what you're talking about with regards to the economic climate and what she did for Britain (whether you are pro/con on her issues)... It's all to easy to fall back now'a'days on this "anti-corporation/anti-political" shit while having no idea what you're talking about and practically saying "She wasn't for the working class!! She supported the 1%!! She shut down needed mines!! She only helped the rich!!" like that, in anyway, means anything about the effectiveness of her policies or how she dictated politics nor to which extent you actually have any knowledge on her policies.
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.
On April 09 2013 21:42 Wombat_NI wrote: Lol, posting a response in the manner of Bill and Ted is hardly a particularly good riposte is it?
It's a total waste of time arguing about politics on TL. As soon as you posted anything about this at length you will have x number of clowns from America or Sweden born in the 90s who couldn't even point to Newcastle, Sunderland or Manchester on a map telling me how what she did was necessary for the British economy and how the unions were too powerful in 70s and 80s Britain which they only discovered after they read the post above their own.
Again and again you have insulted the views of people just because they are not from the UK. Do you think you represent the people of Britain?
The necessity of dealing with rampant Union power abuses, I don't disagree with that. The Unions had essentially become another bloated, corrupt mess with egotistical figures at their heads. The tragedy is that in crushing the unions, it wasn't those people who suffered, but those at the bottom who bore the brunt of the impact. I don't necessarily subscribe to the view that this was her intention at the time, or that she was 'evil' and wanted to crush the poor, but it did create problems in those areas.
I'm not against privitising industry, in and of itself ideologically. However if you're going to privatise, do it properly, don't half-ass it and create hybrid monstrosities that wouldn't survive as business in a real free market.
Deregulation of the media, enabling Murdoch to establish a grip, I'm not sure was necessarily any kind of deliberate act to polarise our media in certain directions, but I feel it has had the consequence of doing so, to the detriment of the country.
On April 09 2013 21:42 Wombat_NI wrote: Lol, posting a response in the manner of Bill and Ted is hardly a particularly good riposte is it?
It's a total waste of time arguing about politics on TL. As soon as you posted anything about this at length you will have x number of clowns from America or Sweden born in the 90s who couldn't even point to Newcastle, Sunderland or Manchester on a map telling me how what she did was necessary for the British economy and how the unions were too powerful in 70s and 80s Britain which they only discovered after they read the post above their own.
Again and again you have insulted the views of people just because they are not from the UK. Do you think you represent the people of Britain?
Incorrect. I have insulted people views when it's clear they don't have the first clue about the country they're pretending to know about.
That's the problem with TL's politics thread. Full of people without even a vague familiarity running their mouths like they're some kind of expert.
The worst example of this I've seen being the ever comical London Riot's thread.
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.
You have suggested numerous times that people outside the UK have no idea what they are talking about. I am 31, I am from the NW, does that mean that my views are more important than somebody who didn't live through Thatchers reign as PM? For the record I am not supporting Thatcher, merely disappointed by the people celebrating her death.
On April 09 2013 21:42 Wombat_NI wrote: Lol, posting a response in the manner of Bill and Ted is hardly a particularly good riposte is it?
It's a total waste of time arguing about politics on TL. As soon as you posted anything about this at length you will have x number of clowns from America or Sweden born in the 90s who couldn't even point to Newcastle, Sunderland or Manchester on a map telling me how what she did was necessary for the British economy and how the unions were too powerful in 70s and 80s Britain which they only discovered after they read the post above their own.
Again and again you have insulted the views of people just because they are not from the UK. Do you think you represent the people of Britain?
It's a common theme, and always confusing. It's like saying straight people cannot talk about gay rights, or men not talk about women's rights. Makes no sense.
On April 09 2013 20:36 sinii wrote: They fail to see the bigger picture.
By bigger picture you mean the bank of England fixing interest rates to benefit London homeowners with total disregard for the needs of the rest of the country at the time right?
She didn't save this country, she destroyed its future and began the boom and bust mentality we're currently in.
On April 09 2013 21:42 Wombat_NI wrote: Lol, posting a response in the manner of Bill and Ted is hardly a particularly good riposte is it?
It's a total waste of time arguing about politics on TL. As soon as you posted anything about this at length you will have x number of clowns from America or Sweden born in the 90s who couldn't even point to Newcastle, Sunderland or Manchester on a map telling me how what she did was necessary for the British economy and how the unions were too powerful in 70s and 80s Britain which they only discovered after they read the post above their own.
Again and again you have insulted the views of people just because they are not from the UK. Do you think you represent the people of Britain?
It's a common theme, and always confusing. It's like saying straight people cannot talk about gay rights, or men not talk about women's rights. Makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense when people demonstrate they have no idea about modern British society nevermind about British society in the 1970s.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 22:22 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 22:48 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
On April 09 2013 18:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Edit: Posting this from an unrelated article. It seems that the relative decline of industry (or manufacturing at least) in the UK was nothing remarkable:
Your graph doesn't count agriculture and the energy sector. Accounting for these things, France's and the USA's decline has been much less steep than that of the UK.
And it's not just about the relative decline of industry. It declined just as surely under New Labour. The difference is that they had an alternative (education) which was at least superficially plausible at the time. Thatcher did not give an alternative and instead presided over a decade with average unemployment of 9.1% (up from 2% in the 70s).
US oil production was in decline starting around 1970 so if you want to add in energy the relative decline of UK industry may in fact look more favorable. Here's what google found for me anyhow - British oil production was taking off just when US production went into decline: + Show Spoiler +
You have a fair point about unemployment but don't over emphasize it. It's just one metric and I'm not even sure the numbers you are using are correct.
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.
I agree with most of this, and actually you're just inferring what I said from what I actually said, which was just a factual statement
It is indeed a political decision, but the way the arguments have been framed by various people in the thread is that Thatcher decided to viciously close down a perfectly good industry, when this was clearly not the case.
The legacy still lasts to this day in the UK, where many northern towns and cities are virtually 'clients' of the government, where the government employs a huge proportion of the population and hands out state benefits.
I guess the question is, where would these northern, former coal-mining areas be today if the government had continued subsidising them? Was the problem in closing the mines down, or is the problem in how these areas are/were subsequently dealt with?
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.
I agree with most of this, and actually you're just inferring what I said from what I actually said, which was just a factual statement
It is indeed a political decision, but the way the arguments have been framed by various people in the thread is that Thatcher decided to viciously close down a perfectly good industry, when this was clearly not the case.
The legacy still lasts to this day in the UK, where many northern towns and cities are virtually 'clients' of the government, where the government employs a huge proportion of the population and hands out state benefits.
I guess the question is, where would these northern, former coal-mining areas be today if the government had continued subsidising them? Was the problem in closing the mines down, or is the problem in how these areas are/were subsequently dealt with?
The latter, they should have subsidized them longer, but at the same time slowly build alternative employment opportunities. And only slowly phase the old industry out.
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.
I agree with most of this, and actually you're just inferring what I said from what I actually said, which was just a factual statement
It is indeed a political decision, but the way the arguments have been framed by various people in the thread is that Thatcher decided to viciously close down a perfectly good industry, when this was clearly not the case.
The legacy still lasts to this day in the UK, where many northern towns and cities are virtually 'clients' of the government, where the government employs a huge proportion of the population and hands out state benefits.
I guess the question is, where would these northern, former coal-mining areas be today if the government had continued subsidising them? Was the problem in closing the mines down, or is the problem in how these areas are/were subsequently dealt with?
The latter, they should have subsidized them longer, but at the same time slowly build alternative employment opportunities. And only slowly phase the old industry out.
That sounds like vaguely sensible, measured policy there. I am neither for/against the whole union/industry crushing that she did, economics is not something I feel comfortable with, though I do try. Not having some kind of transitional policy for those who will be fucked over is the crux of my contention with Thatcher's activities in that area.
On April 10 2013 00:12 lord_nibbler wrote: But if you talk about inflation, you could argue that for people with savings and home owners there was indeed a great recovery.
If it weren't for Thatcher, housing would probably be free of charge to most people.
The land is a public resource. Housing shouldn't cost a penny unless you want something posh. Such arguments were commonplace in the world before Thatcher (where the public had a monopoly on almost all basic infrastructure), yet nowadays are confined to the undercellers of a few marginalized elements of the far Left.
You have a fair point about unemployment but don't over emphasize it. It's just one metric and I'm not even sure the numbers you are using are correct.
The numbers are correct and it's well-known that the Thatcher years were plagued by exceptional and unprecedented unemployment figures.
"One metric"? We're talking millions of people's lives. What other metric would you suggest? GDP per capita? Look at the graph posted by Lord Nibbler. Only the rich benefited from that.
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.
I agree with most of this, and actually you're just inferring what I said from what I actually said, which was just a factual statement
It is indeed a political decision, but the way the arguments have been framed by various people in the thread is that Thatcher decided to viciously close down a perfectly good industry, when this was clearly not the case.
The legacy still lasts to this day in the UK, where many northern towns and cities are virtually 'clients' of the government, where the government employs a huge proportion of the population and hands out state benefits.
I guess the question is, where would these northern, former coal-mining areas be today if the government had continued subsidising them? Was the problem in closing the mines down, or is the problem in how these areas are/were subsequently dealt with?
The latter, they should have subsidized them longer, but at the same time slowly build alternative employment opportunities. And only slowly phase the old industry out.
That sounds like vaguely sensible, measured policy there. I am neither for/against the whole union/industry crushing that she did, economics is not something I feel comfortable with, though I do try. Not having some kind of transitional policy for those who will be fucked over is the crux of my contention with Thatcher's activities in that area.
Well that is the issue with most right-wing ideologues when they come to power. Even if they do something that was in some way necessary they do it without any regard for human suffering. Not that leftist ideologues are that much different, they just do different kind of nonsense. That is because they are ideologues, ideology comes first. They lack ethical calculation in their policies. That is what Thatcher was and good riddance when she left politics. Her death is actually irrelevant for anyone but her close ones.
On April 10 2013 00:12 lord_nibbler wrote: But if you talk about inflation, you could argue that for people with savings and home owners there was indeed a great recovery.
If it weren't for Thatcher, housing would probably be free of charge to most people.
The land is a public resource. Housing shouldn't cost a penny unless you want something posh. Such arguments were commonplace in the world before Thatcher (where the public had a monopoly on almost all basic infrastructure), yet nowadays are confined to the undercellers of a few marginalized elements of the far Left.
That is complete utopia. You could pull it off theoretically, but it is unnecessary distortion to the market. With good safety net, you can keep housing market "free" and still make sure that everybody has roof over their heads. For now it is much more effective solution.
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.
I agree with most of this, and actually you're just inferring what I said from what I actually said, which was just a factual statement
It is indeed a political decision, but the way the arguments have been framed by various people in the thread is that Thatcher decided to viciously close down a perfectly good industry, when this was clearly not the case.
The legacy still lasts to this day in the UK, where many northern towns and cities are virtually 'clients' of the government, where the government employs a huge proportion of the population and hands out state benefits.
I guess the question is, where would these northern, former coal-mining areas be today if the government had continued subsidising them? Was the problem in closing the mines down, or is the problem in how these areas are/were subsequently dealt with?
The latter, they should have subsidized them longer, but at the same time slowly build alternative employment opportunities. And only slowly phase the old industry out.
This guy gets it. Economics are important, but so is not completely destroying the lives of entire communities.
The state shouldn't completely subsidise everything command economy style but neither should it take a gigantic dump on them either in the name of economic progress. For the people who love a Thatcher/Tyrant comparison that is the exact mentality Stalin used to justify the Holodomor and Mao used for the Great Leap Forward.
You have a fair point about unemployment but don't over emphasize it. It's just one metric and I'm not even sure the numbers you are using are correct.
The numbers are correct and it's well-known that the Thatcher years were plagued by exceptional and unprecedented unemployment figures.
"One metric"? We're talking millions of people's lives. What other metric would you suggest? GDP per capita? Look at the graph posted by Lord Nibbler. Only the rich benefited from that.
Well the graph also paints a rather bad picture before and after her "reign". As people pointed out some change was necessary, the problem was in the details of what she did, it could have been done much better and with much less suffering.
On April 10 2013 00:12 lord_nibbler wrote: But if you talk about inflation, you could argue that for people with savings and home owners there was indeed a great recovery.
If it weren't for Thatcher, housing would probably be free of charge to most people.
The land is a public resource. Housing shouldn't cost a penny unless you want something posh. Such arguments were commonplace in the world before Thatcher (where the public had a monopoly on almost all basic infrastructure), yet nowadays are confined to the undercellers of a few marginalized elements of the far Left.
That is complete utopia. You could pull it off theoretically, but it is unnecessary distortion to the market. With good safety net, you can keep housing market "free" and still make sure that everybody has roof over their heads. For now it is much more effective solution.
I'm not in favour of it myself but I think it's wholly realistic for the government to provide housing free of charge built by the government. How is it any difference in terms of realism than universal healthcare? You can't really call it utopian.
On April 10 2013 00:12 lord_nibbler wrote: But if you talk about inflation, you could argue that for people with savings and home owners there was indeed a great recovery.
If it weren't for Thatcher, housing would probably be free of charge to most people.
The land is a public resource. Housing shouldn't cost a penny unless you want something posh. Such arguments were commonplace in the world before Thatcher (where the public had a monopoly on almost all basic infrastructure), yet nowadays are confined to the undercellers of a few marginalized elements of the far Left.
That is complete utopia. You could pull it off theoretically, but it is unnecessary distortion to the market. With good safety net, you can keep housing market "free" and still make sure that everybody has roof over their heads. For now it is much more effective solution.
Thatcher took the public housing option that existed and introduced 'right to buy'. What this meant was that anyone could tory donors ended up owning a whole load of the existing public housing option and the government refused to replace the lost stock.
On April 10 2013 00:12 lord_nibbler wrote: But if you talk about inflation, you could argue that for people with savings and home owners there was indeed a great recovery.
If it weren't for Thatcher, housing would probably be free of charge to most people.
The land is a public resource. Housing shouldn't cost a penny unless you want something posh. Such arguments were commonplace in the world before Thatcher (where the public had a monopoly on almost all basic infrastructure), yet nowadays are confined to the undercellers of a few marginalized elements of the far Left.
That is complete utopia. You could pull it off theoretically, but it is unnecessary distortion to the market. With good safety net, you can keep housing market "free" and still make sure that everybody has roof over their heads. For now it is much more effective solution.
I'm not in favour of it myself but I think it's wholly realistic for the government to provide housing free of charge built by the government. How is it any difference in terms of realism than universal healthcare? You can't really call it utopian.
Ok, utopia was maybe too strong a word. It is not practical would be better description. Market works pretty well in housing and better than what governments could do (if you assume social safety net). Market does not work that well in medicine, mostly due to information and ethical issues, thus the difference.
On April 10 2013 00:12 lord_nibbler wrote: But if you talk about inflation, you could argue that for people with savings and home owners there was indeed a great recovery.
If it weren't for Thatcher, housing would probably be free of charge to most people.
The land is a public resource. Housing shouldn't cost a penny unless you want something posh. Such arguments were commonplace in the world before Thatcher (where the public had a monopoly on almost all basic infrastructure), yet nowadays are confined to the undercellers of a few marginalized elements of the far Left.
That is complete utopia. You could pull it off theoretically, but it is unnecessary distortion to the market. With good safety net, you can keep housing market "free" and still make sure that everybody has roof over their heads. For now it is much more effective solution.
Thatcher took the public housing option that existed and introduced 'right to buy'. What this meant was that anyone could tory donors ended up owning a whole load of the existing public housing option and the government refused to replace the lost stock.
That is not an argument for public housing. This just shows that Thatcher was very similar to her Czech version, Vaclav Klaus. She was big idol of his. As prime minister, just after fall of communism, he instituted terribly done privatization of state assets. Same case as what Thatcher did. It was necessary, but Klaus was ideologue and thus practical implementation was terrible and it became one big scam and corruption plot.
On April 10 2013 00:12 lord_nibbler wrote: But if you talk about inflation, you could argue that for people with savings and home owners there was indeed a great recovery.
If it weren't for Thatcher, housing would probably be free of charge to most people.
The land is a public resource. Housing shouldn't cost a penny unless you want something posh. Such arguments were commonplace in the world before Thatcher (where the public had a monopoly on almost all basic infrastructure), yet nowadays are confined to the undercellers of a few marginalized elements of the far Left.
That is complete utopia. You could pull it off theoretically, but it is unnecessary distortion to the market. With good safety net, you can keep housing market "free" and still make sure that everybody has roof over their heads. For now it is much more effective solution.
Thatcher took the public housing option that existed and introduced 'right to buy'. What this meant was that anyone could tory donors ended up owning a whole load of the existing public housing option and the government refused to replace the lost stock.
That is not an argument for public housing. This just shows that Thatcher was very similar to her Czech version, Vaclav Klaus. She was big idol of his. As prime minister, just after fall of communism, he instituted terribly done privatization of state assets. Same case as what Thatcher did. It was necessary, but Klaus was ideologue and thus practical implementation was terrible and it became one big scam and corruption plot.
My point was that there was no need to try to pull off social housing theoretically, it already existed. The legacy of her policy is people making profit from council housing, a hugely depleted stock (as a result of restrictions on reinvestment) with massive waiting lists and and a homeless problem.
The market solution to housing is massively inferior to what we would now have were it not for Thatcher.
You have a fair point about unemployment but don't over emphasize it. It's just one metric and I'm not even sure the numbers you are using are correct.
The numbers are correct and it's well-known that the Thatcher years were plagued by exceptional and unprecedented unemployment figures.
"One metric"? We're talking millions of people's lives. What other metric would you suggest? GDP per capita? Look at the graph posted by Lord Nibbler. Only the rich benefited from that.
Are you sure? If I eyeball numbers off of trading economics it looks like unemployment wasn't 2%, on average, in the 70's. Maybe it's a definitional thing?
And yes looking at income would be a good thing as well. Lord Nibbler's graph shows that the rich disproportionally benefited from the income rise, not that they were the only group that benefited.
Inflation matters. Productivity matters. Lots of data points matter.
On April 10 2013 02:06 mcc wrote: That is complete utopia. You could pull it off theoretically, but it is unnecessary distortion to the market. With good safety net, you can keep housing market "free" and still make sure that everybody has roof over their heads. For now it is much more effective solution.
Hardly "utopia". We already do it with social housing, provided to a good chunk of the population.
And it's not like there's "innovation" in the housing sector. Who cares if that "market" is distorted?
Are you sure? If I eyeball numbers off of trading economics it looks like unemployment wasn't 2%, on average, in the 70's. Maybe it's a definitional thing?
I must have been thinking unemployment rate at the start of the 70s. But still...unemployment rate of 4% isn't bad compared with 9%. Especially when you consider that most of that 4% was frictional unemployment (people taking breaks, inadequate maternity leave, etc.) Explained here. And let's not forget that participation in strikes (imagine how much security workers must have felt to go through with that) must have contributed. "Full employment" is generally the term used to characterize the 70s.
On April 10 2013 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Inflation matters. Productivity matters. Lots of data points matter.
No, it really doesn't. We have unemployment through the roof, whole communities laid to waste, almost no growth in real income for anyone not part of the elite, crime rate unseen for about 100 years, and a broken economy left to subsequent generations. You're simply looking for nits to pick. We have enough information to reach a conclusion that's as sure as we can ever hope for in social and economic matters.
Are you sure? If I eyeball numbers off of trading economics it looks like unemployment wasn't 2%, on average, in the 70's. Maybe it's a definitional thing?
I must have been thinking unemployment rate at the start of the 70s. But still...unemployment rate of 4% isn't bad compared with 9%. Especially when you consider that most of that 4% was frictional unemployment (people taking breaks, inadequate maternity leave, etc.) Explained here. And let's not forget that participation in strikes (imagine how much security workers must have felt to go through with that) must have contributed. "Full employment" is generally the term used to characterize the 70s.
Yes, the economy was more or less at 'full employment' during the 70's. The economy probably went beyond full employment at times as well. Your definition is off though - frictional unemployment is not about people taking breaks or going on maternity leave.
On April 10 2013 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Inflation matters. Productivity matters. Lots of data points matter.
No, it really doesn't. We have unemployment through the roof, whole communities laid to waste, almost no growth in real income for anyone not part of the elite, crime rate unseen for about 100 years, and a broken economy left to subsequent generations. You're simply looking for nits to pick. We have enough information to reach a conclusion that's as sure as we can ever hope for in social and economic matters.
No, the economy was stronger. Income was stronger (particularly in relation to the UK's peers) - and grew for non-elites as well. Inflation was also contained.
The economic record is mixed - some good some bad. You need to acknowledge the good.
Rip you deserve to. A great leader and ahead of her time she lead her country out of deep recession and didn't take anyones shit. Great lady you will be missed.
Morrissey's take on Thatcher sums up my feelings nicely:
Thatcher is remembered as The Iron Lady only because she possessed completely negative traits such as persistent stubbornness and a determined refusal to listen to others.
Every move she made was charged by negativity; she destroyed the British manufacturing industry, she hated the miners, she hated the arts, she hated the Irish Freedom Fighters and allowed them to die, she hated the English poor and did nothing at all to help them, she hated Greenpeace and environmental protectionists, she was the only European political leader who opposed a ban on the ivory trade, she had no wit and no warmth and even her own cabinet booted her out. She gave the order to blow up The Belgrano even though it was outside of the Malvinas Exclusion Zone—and was sailing AWAY from the islands! When the young Argentinean boys aboard The Belgrano had suffered a most appalling and unjust death, Thatcher gave the thumbs-up sign for the British press.
Iron? No. Barbaric? Yes. She hated feminists even though it was largely due to the progression of the women's movement that the British people allowed themselves to accept that a prime minister could actually be female. But because of Thatcher, there will never again be another woman in power in British politics, and rather than opening that particular door for other women, she closed it.
Thatcher will only be fondly remembered by sentimentalists who did not suffer under her leadership, but the majority of British working people have forgotten her already, and the people of Argentina will be celebrating her death. As a matter of recorded fact, Thatcher was a terror without an atom of humanity.
Personally, I think the Falkland Wars were justified. The people of Falkland wanted to stay with Britain but Argentina said otherwise not to mention that Argentina had a military junta at the time. Leftists who justify Argentina really make me angry.
Thatcher didn't reduce state spending. Government expenditure went up every year she was in office save 1985-1986 and the year of 1990-91 when she was kicked out of power by her own party. Her achievement in that regard was simply redistributing who pays for the budget.
The economy grew largely in part because we had the (mis?)fortune of being slap in the middle of an oil boom during the 80's and unlike a country like Norway that set up extensive sovereign wealth funds with there energy deposits, Britain spent hard and kept corporation tax on oil company's low for a short term net boost in growth.
On April 10 2013 04:13 Shiragaku wrote: Personally, I think the Falkland Wars were justified. The people of Falkland wanted to stay with Britain but Argentina said otherwise not to mention that Argentina had a military junta at the time. Leftists who justify Argentina really make me angry.
I'm not sure there are any leftists who try to justify the Argentinian invasion, are there?
On April 10 2013 04:13 Shiragaku wrote: Personally, I think the Falkland Wars were justified. The people of Falkland wanted to stay with Britain but Argentina said otherwise not to mention that Argentina had a military junta at the time. Leftists who justify Argentina really make me angry.
I'm not sure there are any leftists who try to justify the Argentinian invasion, are there?
Some anti-imperialists will justify anything as long as it is against an imperial nation. I know a few of these guys in real life and more on the internet. Thank God they are not the mainstream left.
EDIT - I am a leftist myself, but you cannot justify a fascist government to overthrow a liberal democracy just for the sake of weakening a powerful nation.
i think it would be argentinas right to reclaim the falklands. i need only to look at a map to see whose land that is. britain could boat the people who considered themselves more british than argentine back to britain. it would have cost less money and fewer lives would have been lost. a war is not justified unless all other options are depleted.
edit: i guess i should say, i am not sure it would have cost more money and i'm not sure it would have cost more lives.
On April 10 2013 04:25 nunez wrote: i think it would be argentinas right to reclaim the falklands. i need only to look at a map to see whose land that is. britain could boat the people who considered themselves more british than argentine back to britain. it would have cost less money and fewer lives would have been lost. a war is not justified unless all other options are depleted.
edit: i guess i should say, i am not sure it would have cost more money and i'm not sure it would have cost more lives.
What you are justifying is what some far-right Israeli politicians say about the Palestinians. Also, the island was uninhabited when it was first discovered by the Europeans.
On April 10 2013 04:13 Shiragaku wrote: Personally, I think the Falkland Wars were justified. The people of Falkland wanted to stay with Britain but Argentina said otherwise not to mention that Argentina had a military junta at the time. Leftists who justify Argentina really make me angry.
Of all the things Thatcher did, the Falklands War is probably the least contentious. We were attacked and she answered. Non-interventionists will justify any pacifist stance regardless of how inane the situation.
The problem was not the war, the contentious part is that she rode to a landslide victory in a snap election (British prime ministers don't sit fixed terms, they can call elections) on the back of it in 83
I always suspected the Argentina's got the better deal in that war, they got rid of a military junta we got stuck with Thatcher for another 2 terms.
On April 10 2013 04:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Yes, the economy was more or less at 'full employment' during the 70's. The economy probably went beyond full employment at times as well. Your definition is off though - frictional unemployment is not about people taking breaks or going on maternity leave.
No. That is exactly the definition given in the government document that I linked to.
On April 10 2013 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The economic record is mixed - some good some bad. You need to acknowledge the good.
"The good" has proven a bum steer. Other European countries did not go down this path and they have fared much better than we have, despite not having anything close to the inherited and natural advantages of the UK.
"Reaganomics" might work passably well for the United States to some extent. It doesn't work for the UK. It probably won't even work for the US once the proceeds of the dot com revolution start to thin out.
On April 10 2013 00:12 lord_nibbler wrote: But if you talk about inflation, you could argue that for people with savings and home owners there was indeed a great recovery.
If it weren't for Thatcher, housing would probably be free of charge to most people.
The land is a public resource. Housing shouldn't cost a penny unless you want something posh. Such arguments were commonplace in the world before Thatcher (where the public had a monopoly on almost all basic infrastructure), yet nowadays are confined to the undercellers of a few marginalized elements of the far Left.
That is complete utopia. You could pull it off theoretically, but it is unnecessary distortion to the market. With good safety net, you can keep housing market "free" and still make sure that everybody has roof over their heads. For now it is much more effective solution.
land ownership is a rent seeking distortion. not the other way around.
(only the portion of unimproved value though. so if you build a house on a land, that house is yours and you can own it, but the land itself is public)
On April 10 2013 04:13 Shiragaku wrote: Personally, I think the Falkland Wars were justified. The people of Falkland wanted to stay with Britain but Argentina said otherwise not to mention that Argentina had a military junta at the time. Leftists who justify Argentina really make me angry.
I'm not sure there are any leftists who try to justify the Argentinian invasion, are there?
Some anti-imperialists will justify anything as long as it is against an imperial nation. I know a few of these guys in real life and more on the internet. Thank God they are not the mainstream left.
Ok, so a bit of searching about and I'm actually amazed to see there really are people who hold that position!
On April 10 2013 04:25 nunez wrote: i think it would be argentinas right to reclaim the falklands. i need only to look at a map to see whose land that is. britain could boat the people who considered themselves more british than argentine back to britain. it would have cost less money and fewer lives would have been lost. a war is not justified unless all other options are depleted.
At the time of the conflict in the Tactcherite era, there were 2 Argentinians on the islands, who were married to islanders. The invasion was a last ditch attempt by a fascist government guilty of suppressing and murdering its own people to use nationalism as a balwark against a national strike. To allow the islands to fall under their rule would have been a far worse option. There was no legitimate claim. That's not to say I think everything the UK government did was correct at that time, but they were certainly not the villain in that instance.
i wouldn't think a war was justified unless it was the last option. it does seem to me like that land rightfully belongs to the argentinian people. it could be an easier solution to just secede the land, and evacuate whoever considers themselves british from that island (considering how few people atually are living on them) back to britain.
On April 10 2013 04:35 nunez wrote: why? i thought i made a simple point.
i wouldn't think a war was justified unless it was the last option. it does seem to me like that land rightfully belongs to the argentinian people. it could be an easier solution to just secede the land, and evacuate whoever considers themselves british from that island (considering how few people atually are living on them) back to britain.
Critics will be critics, and will often second guess her choices and actions, and that is easy to do because the critic is not the one who is accountable.
On April 10 2013 04:13 Shiragaku wrote: Personally, I think the Falkland Wars were justified. The people of Falkland wanted to stay with Britain but Argentina said otherwise not to mention that Argentina had a military junta at the time. Leftists who justify Argentina really make me angry.
There's a third stance on it too, which is that the war was justified but some of the actions taken during it were not. An example from another section of history would be Stalin's war against Germany: he was attacked, and it was just that he retaliate. But the rapes committed by his soldiers against civilian women were not justified. What do you think of that condemnation of Thatcher?
On April 10 2013 04:13 Shiragaku wrote: Personally, I think the Falkland Wars were justified. The people of Falkland wanted to stay with Britain but Argentina said otherwise not to mention that Argentina had a military junta at the time. Leftists who justify Argentina really make me angry.
There's a third stance on it too, which is that the war was justified but some of the actions taken during it were not. An example from another section of history would be Stalin's war against Germany: he was attacked, and it was just that he retaliate. But the rapes committed by his soldiers against civilian women were not justified. What do you think of that condemnation of Thatcher?
I am not too familiar with the aftermath of the war except for the fact that Britain won, but I do not think I read any atrocities or war crimes committed by Britain during the war. But as for her other policies such as union busting and Pinochet, it is something I find to be completely despicable.
let's be serious about falklands though. even if there were no brits on the island thatcher would have done the same thing, or a number of other less favorable permutations.
On April 10 2013 04:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Yes, the economy was more or less at 'full employment' during the 70's. The economy probably went beyond full employment at times as well. Your definition is off though - frictional unemployment is not about people taking breaks or going on maternity leave.
No. That is exactly the definition given in the government document that I linked to.
Where is that said? From the doc:
There will always be a certain level of unemployment, even within a healthy economy, as people enter or re-enter the labour force or move between jobs. This is known as ‘frictional unemployment’.
Frictional unemployment is not people taking breaks or going on maternity leave. They would have been counted as having exited the labor force.
On April 10 2013 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The economic record is mixed - some good some bad. You need to acknowledge the good.
"The good" has proven a bum steer. Other European countries did not go down this path and they have fared much better than we have, despite not having anything close to the inherited and natural advantages of the UK.
"Reaganomics" might work passably well for the United States to some extent. It doesn't work for the UK. It probably won't even work for the US once the proceeds of the dot com revolution start to thin out.
No, other European countries fared "worse" depending on what data point you are looking at. Prior to Thatcher the UK was in relative decline compared to Germany and France.
On April 10 2013 04:52 oneofthem wrote: let's be serious about falklands though. even if there were no brits on the island thatcher would have done the same thing, or a number of other less favorable permutations.
she's ideological and medieval
Being a major critic of Thatcher, I would like to believe so but it did not happen so we cannot make a judgement. I personally believe that we can only criticize Thatcher's stance on the Falkland Islands if there was a movement for self-determination and she crushed it and made sure to keep the Falklands part of Britain.
EDIT - Post below, is it a war crime to route retreating enemy forces?
On April 10 2013 04:13 Shiragaku wrote: Personally, I think the Falkland Wars were justified. The people of Falkland wanted to stay with Britain but Argentina said otherwise not to mention that Argentina had a military junta at the time. Leftists who justify Argentina really make me angry.
There's a third stance on it too, which is that the war was justified but some of the actions taken during it were not. An example from another section of history would be Stalin's war against Germany: he was attacked, and it was just that he retaliate. But the rapes committed by his soldiers against civilian women were not justified. What do you think of that condemnation of Thatcher?
I am not too familiar with the aftermath of the war except for the fact that Britain won, but I do not think I read any atrocities or war crimes committed by Britain during the war. But as for her other policies such as union busting and Pinochet, it is something I find to be completely despicable.
There was a mention earlier of a ship being sunk as it was retreating. I don't know a whole lot about it either, but on the surface it seems a little beyond the pale.
One of the biggest things that Thatcher did was the right to buy. This allowed some working class people to get onto the property ladder, but the biggest effects were to allow the wealthy to acquire more property while pushing house prices up so that first time buyers from found it harder to buy their own homes. It's actually very similar to what Cameron's government has recently proposed.
As for the Falklands, I do not think Thatcher did anything wrong. She was lucky though as it helped her to be re-elected. She basically won the first election because she was a woman and the second due to the war. I am sure that sounds sexist, but if you ask any 50 year old+ British women who they voted for in 79 they will mostly say Thatcher, Even women who have never voted conservative before or since voted for Thatcher in 79.
On April 10 2013 04:52 oneofthem wrote: let's be serious about falklands though. even if there were no brits on the island thatcher would have done the same thing, or a number of other less favorable permutations.
she's ideological and medieval
Being a major critic of Thatcher, I would like to believe so but it did not happen so we cannot make a judgement. I personally believe that we can only criticize Thatcher's stance on the Falkland Islands if there was a movement for self-determination and she crushed it and made sure to keep the Falklands part of Britain.
EDIT - Post below, is it a war crime to route retreating enemy forces?
the whole conflict seems rather silly. beating back the argentinians would have been enough. of course, lower level military decisions are not necessarily the fault of the leader herself, but given all the other foreign policy stuff thatcher did it would be a miracle if she treated argentinians with some respect.
On April 10 2013 04:25 nunez wrote: i think it would be argentinas right to reclaim the falklands. i need only to look at a map to see whose land that is. britain could boat the people who considered themselves more british than argentine back to britain. it would have cost less money and fewer lives would have been lost. a war is not justified unless all other options are depleted.
edit: i guess i should say, i am not sure it would have cost more money and i'm not sure it would have cost more lives.
On April 10 2013 04:13 Shiragaku wrote: Personally, I think the Falkland Wars were justified. The people of Falkland wanted to stay with Britain but Argentina said otherwise not to mention that Argentina had a military junta at the time. Leftists who justify Argentina really make me angry.
There's a third stance on it too, which is that the war was justified but some of the actions taken during it were not. An example from another section of history would be Stalin's war against Germany: he was attacked, and it was just that he retaliate. But the rapes committed by his soldiers against civilian women were not justified. What do you think of that condemnation of Thatcher?
I am not too familiar with the aftermath of the war except for the fact that Britain won, but I do not think I read any atrocities or war crimes committed by Britain during the war. But as for her other policies such as union busting and Pinochet, it is something I find to be completely despicable.
There was a mention earlier of a ship being sunk as it was retreating. I don't know a whole lot about it either, but on the surface it seems a little beyond the pale.
Still only the 2nd ship sunk post world war 2 by a submarine. It wasn't retreating but it was outside the British designated exclusion zone. The military deemed it a threat and ordered HMS conqueror to sink it. 323 dead. Soldiers in uniform at war mind, not civilians.The Argentina Captain believed it was a legitimate action at war.
The Argentinian's sunk HMS Sheffield 2 days latter. That's war though, it's a bloody business. As wars typically go the Falkland's War is among the "cleanest" from both sides in recent history in terms of civilian to military deaths.
However Rupert Mordoch's Sun headline was typically vile and disgusting.
I always found the accusations made against Thatcher reguarding the Falklands to be weak. Argentina really asked for it. Unless one believes the book about François Mitterrand.
Margaret Thatcher forced François Mitterrand to give her the codes to disable Argentina's deadly French-made missiles during the Falklands war by threatening to launch a nuclear warhead against Buenos Aires, according to a book. Rendez-vous - the psychoanalysis of François Mitterrand, by Ali Magoudi, who met the late French president up to twice a week in secrecy at his Paris practice from 1982 to 1984, also reveals that Mr Mitterrand believed he would get his "revenge" by building a tunnel under the Channel which would forever destroy Britain's island status.
The book, to be published on Friday, is one of several on France's first Socialist president to mark the 10th anniversary of his death on January 8 1996. Despite a now tarnished reputation, he remains a source of fascination for the French in general and the left in particular. Rendez-vous provides revealing insights into the man's mysterious character, complicated past, paranoia and power complex, but nothing as titillating as his remarks on the former British prime minister.
"Excuse me. I had a difference to settle with the Iron Lady. That Thatcher, what an impossible woman!" the president said as he arrived, more than 45 minutes late, on May 7 1982. "With her four nuclear submarines in the south Atlantic, she's threatening to unleash an atomic weapon against Argentina if I don't provide her with the secret codes that will make the missiles we sold the Argentinians deaf and blind." He reminded Mr Magoudi that on May 4 an Exocet missile had struck HMS Sheffield. "To make matters worse, it was fired from a Super-Etendard jet," he said. "All the matériel was French!"
In words that the psychoanalyst has sworn to the publisher, Meren Sell, are genuine, the president continued: "She's livid. She blames me personally for this new Trafalgar ... I was obliged to give in. She's got them now, the codes."
Mr Mitterrand - who once described Mrs Thatcher as "the eyes of Caligula and the mouth of Marilyn Monroe" - went on: "One cannot win against the insular syndrome of an unbridled Englishwoman. Provoke a nuclear war for a few islands inhabited by three sheep as hairy as they are freezing! But it's a good job I gave way. Otherwise, I assure you, the Lady's metallic finger would have hit the button."
France, he insisted, would have the last word. "I'll build a tunnel under the Channel. I'll succeed where Napoleon III failed. And do you know why she'll accept my tunnel? I'll flatter her shopkeeper's spirit. I'll tell her it won't cost the Crown a penny."
It's kinda funny when contrasted with the Channel Tunnel Wiki:
In 1981 British and French leaders Margaret Thatcher and François Mitterrand agreed to set up a working group to look into a privately funded project, and in April 1985 promoters were formally invited to submit scheme proposals. Four submissions were shortlisted:
Here's some graphs to take a look at. I encourage everyone to make their own minds up.
Thatcher came into power in 1979 and left in 1990 but the Conservatives stayed in power until 1997. Unemployment rose drastically when she came into power. GDP had been failing for 30 years compared to Europe, but it turned around. Manufacturing fell by about 20% when she came in but recovered a bit. Relative to GDP manufacturing decline actually slowed under the Conservatives before accelerating under Labour, probably because of the shift towards the public sector. In real terms the poor got richer.
Those graphs are woefully inadequate if you really hope for the average poster to "make up their own minds"; they do a poor job of tying any of the historic phenomena they describe to the policies of Thatcher, which is presumably a necessary component of an honest analysis of her place in history.
On April 10 2013 05:39 farvacola wrote: Those graphs are woefully inadequate if you really hope for the average poster to "make up their own minds"; they do a poor job of tying any of the historic phenomena they describe to the policies of Thatcher, which is presumably a necessary component of an honest analysis of her place in history.
The trouble is each person wants to write their own "history" based on their agenda. People can have their own opinions, but they can't have their own facts.
On April 10 2013 04:25 nunez wrote: i think it would be argentinas right to reclaim the falklands. i need only to look at a map to see whose land that is. britain could boat the people who considered themselves more british than argentine back to britain. it would have cost less money and fewer lives would have been lost. a war is not justified unless all other options are depleted.
edit: i guess i should say, i am not sure it would have cost more money and i'm not sure it would have cost more lives.
What you are justifying is what some far-right Israeli politicians say about the Palestinians. Also, the island was uninhabited when it was first discovered by the Europeans.
it was not my intent to justify the initial invasion, i wouldn't. i think the manner in which both sides arrive at a conflict needs to be taken into account when considering whether or not a conflict was justified. you can have a conflict that is not justified without having any villains involved, the converse is also possible.
i think what people i'd side with in a dispute over claim to an area in would be a function of proximity, time and size of population, not just the initial discovery.
it would be an impossible distinction for me to make in most cases, f.ex israel / palestinia. i would think of them as having equal rights to that area, because i don't know if one has more 'claim' to it than the other. i am too uneducated on the subject, and maybe it's impossible for me to make a distinction because i can't get enough reliable information.
i am also uneducated on the falklands war, if it was not obvious, however it seemed to be a bit more trivial to make the distinction on who has a legitimate claim to the land. i thought argentine would have the right to claim the lands, and a conflict would probably be unfortunate at best.
reading yours and lyerbeth replies it seems however that i might have been oversimplifying, and i will try to read up some more.
nunez's approach is interesting to entertain as an idealization. let's all sit down at the table and divide out fair share according to who's closer and who 'needs' it more.
but if we are to go that far, might as well get rid of borders altogether.
I’m sure that British economists will be hashing this stuff over in the days ahead. For now, consider this a caution: if anyone tells you that Thatcher saved the British economy, you should ask why the results of that salvation took so very long to materialize.
She was a great woman and a good politician, but some people are exaggerating when it comes to her achievements in my opinion. Can highly recommend reading Krugman in general.
On April 10 2013 04:35 nunez wrote: why? i thought i made a simple point.
i wouldn't think a war was justified unless it was the last option. it does seem to me like that land rightfully belongs to the argentinian people. it could be an easier solution to just secede the land, and evacuate whoever considers themselves british from that island (considering how few people atually are living on them) back to britain.
It seems to me like Denmark owns Norway.
You mind moving to Sweden for the sake of peace?
haha! i would mind a bit, but sweden is a nice country, and i prefer swedes slightly over danes.
i undestand your point, and there are cases where it is impossible to make such a distinction, but i did not think this was one of them. i don't think your analogy catches all the nuances of the issue. it's an island extremely far away with a couple of thousand inhabitants.
a better analogy with norway in it, ratio wise, would be that holland retakes jan mayen because there's a single hermit with dutch ancestry living there (used to be a dutch whaling station in the 1600s), and norway is establishing a military station on it.
On April 10 2013 04:35 nunez wrote: why? i thought i made a simple point.
i wouldn't think a war was justified unless it was the last option. it does seem to me like that land rightfully belongs to the argentinian people. it could be an easier solution to just secede the land, and evacuate whoever considers themselves british from that island (considering how few people atually are living on them) back to britain.
It seems to me like Denmark owns Norway.
You mind moving to Sweden for the sake of peace?
haha! i would mind a bit, but sweden is a nice country, and i prefer swedes slightly over danes.
i undestand your point, and there are cases where it is impossible to make such a distinction, but i did not think this was one of them. i don't think your analogy catches all the nuances of the issue. it's an island extremely far away with a couple of thousand inhabitants.
a better analogy with norway in it, ratio wise, would be that holland retakes jan mayen because there's a single hermit with dutch ancestry living there, and norway is establishing a military station on it.
A better example comparison would be if Spain defended the Canary Islands against a Moroccan invasion, only even that would be more ambiguous, since there actually were natives there.
On April 10 2013 06:17 oneofthem wrote: nunez's approach is interesting to entertain as an idealization. let's all sit down at the table and divide out fair share according to who's closer and who 'needs' it more.
but if we are to go that far, might as well get rid of borders altogether.
yes, i realize it is not an effective solution to settle disputes. and it's not an approach i would generally follow. in this scenario i thought it wouldn't be oversimplifying too much.
now, looking back, covered in bile, i guess i was mistaken.
edit: my initial post was a reaction to calling the war justified. i'm not sure it was, my knee jerk reaction is to think that it was not justified, but unfortunate. a lot of people seem to think this opinion is garbage, or i am failing to communicate. both equally probable.
On April 10 2013 06:17 oneofthem wrote: nunez's approach is interesting to entertain as an idealization. let's all sit down at the table and divide out fair share according to who's closer and who 'needs' it more.
but if we are to go that far, might as well get rid of borders altogether.
yes, i realize it is not an effective solution to settle disputes. and it's not an approach i would generally follow. in this scenario i thought it wouldn't be oversimplifying too much.
now, looking back, covered in bile, i guess i was mistaken.
edit: my initial post was a reaction to calling the war justified. i'm not sure it was, my knee jerk reaction is to think that it was not justified, but unfortunate. a lot of people seem to think this opinion is garbage, or i am failing to communicate. both equally probable.
Bear in mind that Argentina was the aggressor. They might of thought that the islands should belong to them but they knew full well that they were invading foreign territory.
a possible solution would be to separate settler rights from mineral wealth rights.
the former is one of civil administration, the second is about a commons resource problem, like international fisheries. you'd have whichever government administering the territory's laws and post offices etc that the settlers prefer, but the underlying mineral wealth is settled through shared development treaties.
On April 10 2013 06:46 oneofthem wrote: a possible solution would be to separate settler rights from mineral wealth rights.
the former is one of civil administration, the second is about a commons resource problem, like international fisheries. you'd have whichever government administering the territory's laws and post offices etc that the settlers prefer, but the underlying mineral wealth is settled through shared development treaties.
Argentina will not agree with shared development treaties. It is written into their constitution that their government must pursue the acquisition of the islands. They cannot bend without changing their constitution and the UK will not agree to give the islands up. There is not much room for negotiation.
On April 10 2013 06:17 oneofthem wrote: nunez's approach is interesting to entertain as an idealization. let's all sit down at the table and divide out fair share according to who's closer and who 'needs' it more.
but if we are to go that far, might as well get rid of borders altogether.
yes, i realize it is not an effective solution to settle disputes. and it's not an approach i would generally follow. in this scenario i thought it wouldn't be oversimplifying too much.
now, looking back, covered in bile, i guess i was mistaken.
edit: my initial post was a reaction to calling the war justified. i'm not sure it was, my knee jerk reaction is to think that it was not justified, but unfortunate. a lot of people seem to think this opinion is garbage, or i am failing to communicate. both equally probable.
Bear in mind that Argentina was the aggressor. They might of thought that the islands should belong to them but they knew full well that they were invading foreign territory.
yes, i am aware of this. they considered, and rightfully so, i initially thought, that territory to be theirs. not that it alone would justify an invasion. probably a terrible decision on their part.
but i am not sure it had to come to that, in which case the conflict would not be in my eyes justified, but unfortunate. not something you parade about like an achievement or good policy, but rather something that had to be done because of your shortcomings as a leader.
On April 10 2013 06:46 oneofthem wrote: a possible solution would be to separate settler rights from mineral wealth rights.
the former is one of civil administration, the second is about a commons resource problem, like international fisheries. you'd have whichever government administering the territory's laws and post offices etc that the settlers prefer, but the underlying mineral wealth is settled through shared development treaties.
Argentina will not agree with shared development treaties. It is written into their constitution that their government must pursue the acquisition of the islands. They cannot bend without changing their constitution and the UK will not agree to give the islands up. There is not much room for negotiation.
yea, that would be a problem in this particular situation. but as a general approach to resolving these sort of issues (china-japan island etc) it's better than a straight down sovereignty approach
On April 10 2013 06:46 oneofthem wrote: a possible solution would be to separate settler rights from mineral wealth rights.
the former is one of civil administration, the second is about a commons resource problem, like international fisheries. you'd have whichever government administering the territory's laws and post offices etc that the settlers prefer, but the underlying mineral wealth is settled through shared development treaties.
Even then, logically the wealth would go to Spain, the United Kingdom, or else it would be terra nullius.
On April 10 2013 06:17 oneofthem wrote: nunez's approach is interesting to entertain as an idealization. let's all sit down at the table and divide out fair share according to who's closer and who 'needs' it more.
but if we are to go that far, might as well get rid of borders altogether.
yes, i realize it is not an effective solution to settle disputes. and it's not an approach i would generally follow. in this scenario i thought it wouldn't be oversimplifying too much.
now, looking back, covered in bile, i guess i was mistaken.
edit: my initial post was a reaction to calling the war justified. i'm not sure it was, my knee jerk reaction is to think that it was not justified, but unfortunate. a lot of people seem to think this opinion is garbage, or i am failing to communicate. both equally probable.
Bear in mind that Argentina was the aggressor. They might of thought that the islands should belong to them but they knew full well that they were invading foreign territory.
yes, i am aware of this. they considered, and rightfully so, i initially thought, that territory to be theirs. not that it alone would justify an invasion. probably a terrible decision on their part.
but i am not sure it had to come to that, in which case the conflict would not be in my eyes justified, but unfortunate. not something you parade about like an achievement or good policy, but rather something that had to be done because of your shortcomings as a leader.
maybe it did, and i'm plain wrong.
The falklands people speak English, have English citizenship, are of English descent and wish to be part of England. That is the end of it. Argentina has absolutely zero claim to the islands.
On April 10 2013 06:46 oneofthem wrote: a possible solution would be to separate settler rights from mineral wealth rights.
the former is one of civil administration, the second is about a commons resource problem, like international fisheries. you'd have whichever government administering the territory's laws and post offices etc that the settlers prefer, but the underlying mineral wealth is settled through shared development treaties.
Even then, logically the wealth would go to Spain, the United Kingdom, or else it would be terra nullius.
by what logic? it is easy to assert a right of proximity for natural resources if a new framework is proposed instead of mechanically following from old rules.
On April 10 2013 06:17 oneofthem wrote: nunez's approach is interesting to entertain as an idealization. let's all sit down at the table and divide out fair share according to who's closer and who 'needs' it more.
but if we are to go that far, might as well get rid of borders altogether.
yes, i realize it is not an effective solution to settle disputes. and it's not an approach i would generally follow. in this scenario i thought it wouldn't be oversimplifying too much.
now, looking back, covered in bile, i guess i was mistaken.
edit: my initial post was a reaction to calling the war justified. i'm not sure it was, my knee jerk reaction is to think that it was not justified, but unfortunate. a lot of people seem to think this opinion is garbage, or i am failing to communicate. both equally probable.
Bear in mind that Argentina was the aggressor. They might of thought that the islands should belong to them but they knew full well that they were invading foreign territory.
yes, i am aware of this. they considered, and rightfully so, i initially thought, that territory to be theirs. not that it alone would justify an invasion. probably a terrible decision on their part.
but i am not sure it had to come to that, in which case the conflict would not be in my eyes justified, but unfortunate. not something you parade about like an achievement or good policy, but rather something that had to be done because of your shortcomings as a leader.
maybe it did, and i'm plain wrong.
The falklands people speak English, have English citizenship, are of English descent and wish to be part of England. That is the end of it. Argentina has absolutely zero claim to the islands.
the majority of the thousands of people living on this island at the time considered themselves british, i understand this. britain has a legitimate stake in that territory. it is at least the british living there, maybe even their possessions. but i don't think that is necessarily sufficient to establish that argentinia has zero claim to the territory in this scenario. nor do i think taking such a stance would necessarily help in finding the optimal way of solving a dispute.
and at the very least i think it's detrimental to limit yourself to that approach when you are trying to understand such an incident that happened in the past.
we don't think that claim to some territory at any given period in time with arbitrary length is only based on who lives the closest to the territory in that period. it can be a useful abstraction in a lot of less dynamic cases, but probably not so much in cases similar to this one.
On April 10 2013 06:17 oneofthem wrote: nunez's approach is interesting to entertain as an idealization. let's all sit down at the table and divide out fair share according to who's closer and who 'needs' it more.
but if we are to go that far, might as well get rid of borders altogether.
yes, i realize it is not an effective solution to settle disputes. and it's not an approach i would generally follow. in this scenario i thought it wouldn't be oversimplifying too much.
now, looking back, covered in bile, i guess i was mistaken.
edit: my initial post was a reaction to calling the war justified. i'm not sure it was, my knee jerk reaction is to think that it was not justified, but unfortunate. a lot of people seem to think this opinion is garbage, or i am failing to communicate. both equally probable.
Bear in mind that Argentina was the aggressor. They might of thought that the islands should belong to them but they knew full well that they were invading foreign territory.
yes, i am aware of this. they considered, and rightfully so, i initially thought, that territory to be theirs. not that it alone would justify an invasion. probably a terrible decision on their part.
but i am not sure it had to come to that, in which case the conflict would not be in my eyes justified, but unfortunate. not something you parade about like an achievement or good policy, but rather something that had to be done because of your shortcomings as a leader.
maybe it did, and i'm plain wrong.
The falklands people speak English, have English citizenship, are of English descent and wish to be part of England. That is the end of it. Argentina has absolutely zero claim to the islands.
the majority of the thousands of people living on this island at the time considered themselves british, i understand this. britain has a legitimate stake in that territory, it is at least the british living there, maybe even their possessions. but i don't think that is necessarily sufficient to establish that argentinia has zero claim to the land in this scenario. nor do i think taking such a stance would necessarily help finding the the optimal way of solving a dispute.
and at the very least i think it's detrimental to limit yourself to that approach when you are trying to understand such an incident that happened in the past.
we don't think that claim to some territory at any given period in time with arbitrary length is only based on who lives the closest to the territory in that period. it can be a useful abstraction in a lot of less dynamic cases, but probably not so much in cases similar to this one.
No, that's stupid. 99.8% of people living there wish to be part of the British Empire in the referendum last month. End of discussion right there.
challenge your stance, entertain some nuance, a man might be a brit, but sheep don't give a shit.
you want to sit on it now to prove some point, good for you, i can't blame you for that. but it probably means that we are not seeing eye to eye on what is being discussed.
On April 10 2013 11:35 nunez wrote: hah. stupid... i'm just getting started.
challenge your stance, entertain some nuance, a man might be a brit, but sheep don't give a shit.
you want to sit on it now to prove some point, good for you, i can't blame you for that. but it probably means that we are not seeing eye to eye on what is being discussed.
Could you enlighten me as to exactly where Argentina arrived at this claim? There is no claim, there never was. No Argentinian has ever lived there.
On April 10 2013 11:35 nunez wrote: hah. stupid... i'm just getting started.
challenge your stance, entertain some nuance, a man might be a brit, but sheep don't give a shit.
you want to sit on it now to prove some point, good for you, i can't blame you for that. but it probably means that we are not seeing eye to eye on what is being discussed.
Could you enlighten me as to exactly where Argentina arrived at this claim? There is no claim, there never was. No Argentinian has ever lived there.
i have already tried to the best of my abilities to explain where i was coming from. if i did not already succeed, then i think it is best that we give it a rest for now, because it probably means that i am not up to the task for the time being.
this is absolutely the worst idea i have ever heard in my entire life.
The Wigan chariman (Wigan being a town in the North West of England) wants minute silences to be held around football grounds (where hundreds of thousands of fans - many of whose parents were put out of work by Thatcher - gather). How does he think that's going to end? Some people are really naive.
Regarding the editorial about not speaking ill of the dead I think they are missing the point. There is a difference between debating the impact of a politicians policies reasonably like adults and people throwing a party to celebrate the passing of a woman who obviously suffered greatly from dementia and was a little old woman at the time of her passing. It just seems really pathetic to throw a party.
About the Falklands the islanders have voted over and over to stay British and the Argentinians invaded. I don't know why there could even be a debate here. Should the British Gov't just roll over and let the Argentinians have the island and abandon their citizens? If you follow the logic of "It's closer to Argentina" why does Canada not get Greenland?
On April 10 2013 13:42 nunez wrote: read the article posted above toki.
You really think they could possibly pay 1,800 islanders who were British Citizens 475,000 pounds each to leave Britain? After the Argentines invaded?
That would be an incredibly pathetic display from the British bowing down to some random South American country and in the process giving up British soil and abandoning British Citizens.
It would be nearly the same as just giving Kuwait to Iraq. I'm sure there was some justification for Saddam rolling his tanks into Kuwait.
On April 10 2013 02:06 mcc wrote: That is complete utopia. You could pull it off theoretically, but it is unnecessary distortion to the market. With good safety net, you can keep housing market "free" and still make sure that everybody has roof over their heads. For now it is much more effective solution.
Hardly "utopia". We already do it with social housing, provided to a good chunk of the population.
And it's not like there's "innovation" in the housing sector. Who cares if that "market" is distorted?
Market is actually pretty good tool to manage some areas of economy and housing is one of them. Distortions to market are not necessarily bad, problem is most distortions in reality are politically motivated (as opposed to efficiency motivated) and bad. There is also not escaping that in current political systems. Thus it is preferable to have not distorted market if possible in areas where it does its job well.
On April 10 2013 06:17 oneofthem wrote: nunez's approach is interesting to entertain as an idealization. let's all sit down at the table and divide out fair share according to who's closer and who 'needs' it more.
but if we are to go that far, might as well get rid of borders altogether.
yes, i realize it is not an effective solution to settle disputes. and it's not an approach i would generally follow. in this scenario i thought it wouldn't be oversimplifying too much.
now, looking back, covered in bile, i guess i was mistaken.
edit: my initial post was a reaction to calling the war justified. i'm not sure it was, my knee jerk reaction is to think that it was not justified, but unfortunate. a lot of people seem to think this opinion is garbage, or i am failing to communicate. both equally probable.
Bear in mind that Argentina was the aggressor. They might of thought that the islands should belong to them but they knew full well that they were invading foreign territory.
yes, i am aware of this. they considered, and rightfully so, i initially thought, that territory to be theirs. not that it alone would justify an invasion. probably a terrible decision on their part.
but i am not sure it had to come to that, in which case the conflict would not be in my eyes justified, but unfortunate. not something you parade about like an achievement or good policy, but rather something that had to be done because of your shortcomings as a leader.
maybe it did, and i'm plain wrong.
The falklands people speak English, have English citizenship, are of English descent and wish to be part of England. That is the end of it. Argentina has absolutely zero claim to the islands.
the majority of the thousands of people living on this island at the time considered themselves british, i understand this. britain has a legitimate stake in that territory. it is at least the british living there, maybe even their possessions. but i don't think that is necessarily sufficient to establish that argentinia has zero claim to the territory in this scenario. nor do i think taking such a stance would necessarily help in finding the optimal way of solving a dispute.
and at the very least i think it's detrimental to limit yourself to that approach when you are trying to understand such an incident that happened in the past.
we don't think that claim to some territory at any given period in time with arbitrary length is only based on who lives the closest to the territory in that period. it can be a useful abstraction in a lot of less dynamic cases, but probably not so much in cases similar to this one.
a nations claim to land is based purely on the population who lives there. this is the idea that underpins the end of empires. no matter your military or economic might (regional or global) it is the people, and their right to self determination that decides the borders of countries.
this is why mexico doesnt have a claim on texas, the uk doesnt have a claim on the united states and argentina doesnt have a claim on the falklands. with the idea of nationalism and nation states developed from the beginning of the 20th century the slate of history was wiped clean. the people decided who was to govern them, and the people of the falklands chose the british government.
On April 10 2013 06:17 oneofthem wrote: nunez's approach is interesting to entertain as an idealization. let's all sit down at the table and divide out fair share according to who's closer and who 'needs' it more.
but if we are to go that far, might as well get rid of borders altogether.
yes, i realize it is not an effective solution to settle disputes. and it's not an approach i would generally follow. in this scenario i thought it wouldn't be oversimplifying too much.
now, looking back, covered in bile, i guess i was mistaken.
edit: my initial post was a reaction to calling the war justified. i'm not sure it was, my knee jerk reaction is to think that it was not justified, but unfortunate. a lot of people seem to think this opinion is garbage, or i am failing to communicate. both equally probable.
Bear in mind that Argentina was the aggressor. They might of thought that the islands should belong to them but they knew full well that they were invading foreign territory.
yes, i am aware of this. they considered, and rightfully so, i initially thought, that territory to be theirs. not that it alone would justify an invasion. probably a terrible decision on their part.
but i am not sure it had to come to that, in which case the conflict would not be in my eyes justified, but unfortunate. not something you parade about like an achievement or good policy, but rather something that had to be done because of your shortcomings as a leader.
maybe it did, and i'm plain wrong.
The falklands people speak English, have English citizenship, are of English descent and wish to be part of England. That is the end of it. Argentina has absolutely zero claim to the islands.
the majority of the thousands of people living on this island at the time considered themselves british, i understand this. britain has a legitimate stake in that territory. it is at least the british living there, maybe even their possessions. but i don't think that is necessarily sufficient to establish that argentinia has zero claim to the territory in this scenario. nor do i think taking such a stance would necessarily help in finding the optimal way of solving a dispute.
and at the very least i think it's detrimental to limit yourself to that approach when you are trying to understand such an incident that happened in the past.
we don't think that claim to some territory at any given period in time with arbitrary length is only based on who lives the closest to the territory in that period. it can be a useful abstraction in a lot of less dynamic cases, but probably not so much in cases similar to this one.
a nations claim to land is based purely on the population who lives there. this is the idea that underpins the end of empires. no matter your military or economic might (regional or global) it is the people, and their right to self determination that decides the borders of countries.
this is why mexico doesnt have a claim on texas, the uk doesnt have a claim on the united states and argentina doesnt have a claim on the falklands. with the idea of nationalism and nation states developed from the beginning of the 20th century the slate of history was wiped clean. the people decided who was to govern them, and the people of the falklands chose the british government.
good post, but i would like to put some numbers on your examples to make it clear how one is so not like the other that i think you should pick it up with special gloves, and use special glasses when you examine it.
mexico to texas, zilch km, population ratio ~ 6:1. no distance, comparable population size. uk to the united states, ~ 5900 km, population ratio ~ 1:5. very long distance, comparable population size. argentinia to the falklands, ~ 800 km, ~ 15 000 : 1, relatively short distance, uncomparable population size. lets consider time as well for this last one, four - five generations to hundreds.
norway is over double the length of argentinia to the falklands, with a population ratio of ~ 10:1. i can see why the argentinian people would think they have a legitimate claim to the territory using the same logic you use. they have been living there. there is not a point, it is a region.
regardless of claim bringing those two thousand brits to britain compared to casualties and money spent on the war (~3 bn pounds) does not seem like it was just complete and utter garbage. it was also a topic of discussion leading up to the war, as shown in the previous article.
my approach is probably not, as remarked on before by another island, a sensible approach in general. in this scenario it is rational when determining whether or not the war was justified and/or avoidable.
On April 10 2013 11:35 nunez wrote: hah. stupid... i'm just getting started.
challenge your stance, entertain some nuance, a man might be a brit, but sheep don't give a shit.
you want to sit on it now to prove some point, good for you, i can't blame you for that. but it probably means that we are not seeing eye to eye on what is being discussed.
Because you're not discussing anything. You're posting in horrendous broken English and making absolutely zero points, you're not even make any bad points, never mind good ones. You have no case at all because there is no case.
On April 10 2013 06:17 oneofthem wrote: nunez's approach is interesting to entertain as an idealization. let's all sit down at the table and divide out fair share according to who's closer and who 'needs' it more.
but if we are to go that far, might as well get rid of borders altogether.
yes, i realize it is not an effective solution to settle disputes. and it's not an approach i would generally follow. in this scenario i thought it wouldn't be oversimplifying too much.
now, looking back, covered in bile, i guess i was mistaken.
edit: my initial post was a reaction to calling the war justified. i'm not sure it was, my knee jerk reaction is to think that it was not justified, but unfortunate. a lot of people seem to think this opinion is garbage, or i am failing to communicate. both equally probable.
Bear in mind that Argentina was the aggressor. They might of thought that the islands should belong to them but they knew full well that they were invading foreign territory.
yes, i am aware of this. they considered, and rightfully so, i initially thought, that territory to be theirs. not that it alone would justify an invasion. probably a terrible decision on their part.
but i am not sure it had to come to that, in which case the conflict would not be in my eyes justified, but unfortunate. not something you parade about like an achievement or good policy, but rather something that had to be done because of your shortcomings as a leader.
maybe it did, and i'm plain wrong.
The falklands people speak English, have English citizenship, are of English descent and wish to be part of England. That is the end of it. Argentina has absolutely zero claim to the islands.
the majority of the thousands of people living on this island at the time considered themselves british, i understand this. britain has a legitimate stake in that territory. it is at least the british living there, maybe even their possessions. but i don't think that is necessarily sufficient to establish that argentinia has zero claim to the territory in this scenario. nor do i think taking such a stance would necessarily help in finding the optimal way of solving a dispute.
and at the very least i think it's detrimental to limit yourself to that approach when you are trying to understand such an incident that happened in the past.
we don't think that claim to some territory at any given period in time with arbitrary length is only based on who lives the closest to the territory in that period. it can be a useful abstraction in a lot of less dynamic cases, but probably not so much in cases similar to this one.
a nations claim to land is based purely on the population who lives there. this is the idea that underpins the end of empires. no matter your military or economic might (regional or global) it is the people, and their right to self determination that decides the borders of countries.
this is why mexico doesnt have a claim on texas, the uk doesnt have a claim on the united states and argentina doesnt have a claim on the falklands. with the idea of nationalism and nation states developed from the beginning of the 20th century the slate of history was wiped clean. the people decided who was to govern them, and the people of the falklands chose the british government.
good post, but i would like to put some numbers on your examples to make it clear how one is so not like the other that i think you should pick it up with special gloves, and use special glasses when you examine it.
mexico to texas, zilch km, population ratio ~ 6:1. no distance, comparable population size. uk to the united states, ~ 5900 km, population ratio ~ 1:5. very long distance, comparable population size. argentinia to the falklands, ~ 800 km, ~ 15 000 : 1, relatively short distance, uncomparable population size. lets consider time as well for this last one, four - five generations to hundreds.
norway is over double the length of argentinia to the falklands, with a population ratio of ~ 10:1. i can see why the argentinian people would think they have a legitimate claim to the territory using the same logic you use. they have been living there. there is not a point, it is a region.
regardless of claim bringing those two thousand brits to britain compared to casualties and money spent on the war (~3 bn pounds) does not seem like it was just complete and utter garbage. it was also a topic of discussion leading up to the war, as shown in the previous article.
my approach is probably not, as remarked on before by another island, a sensible approach in general. in this scenario it is rational when determining whether or not the war was justified and/or avoidable.
Why is this hard for you to understand?
You do not have a claim to land based on it's proximity to your own or the even more stupid reason that you have more people or money than them. That is the justification used by every empire, imperialist, tyrant, dictator and conqueror to ever walk the earth.
The self determination of the people is all that matters.
Perhaps if you could actually speak English we could discuss this better.
implicit in this land claim discussion is the fact that the UK is more advanced and developed earlier than argentina. just to tease out the logic, imagine if we earthlings have galactic neighbors who are much more advanced, and they lay claim to our moon's resources because some of their settlers were on it before USA put a flag on the moon.
or in starcraft terms, if somebody claimed your nat expansion because you had a delayed start.
but in this particular instance argentina's invasion was very bad, and their nationalistic attitude about it partially made a better solution impossible.
On April 10 2013 06:17 oneofthem wrote: nunez's approach is interesting to entertain as an idealization. let's all sit down at the table and divide out fair share according to who's closer and who 'needs' it more.
but if we are to go that far, might as well get rid of borders altogether.
yes, i realize it is not an effective solution to settle disputes. and it's not an approach i would generally follow. in this scenario i thought it wouldn't be oversimplifying too much.
now, looking back, covered in bile, i guess i was mistaken.
edit: my initial post was a reaction to calling the war justified. i'm not sure it was, my knee jerk reaction is to think that it was not justified, but unfortunate. a lot of people seem to think this opinion is garbage, or i am failing to communicate. both equally probable.
Bear in mind that Argentina was the aggressor. They might of thought that the islands should belong to them but they knew full well that they were invading foreign territory.
yes, i am aware of this. they considered, and rightfully so, i initially thought, that territory to be theirs. not that it alone would justify an invasion. probably a terrible decision on their part.
but i am not sure it had to come to that, in which case the conflict would not be in my eyes justified, but unfortunate. not something you parade about like an achievement or good policy, but rather something that had to be done because of your shortcomings as a leader.
maybe it did, and i'm plain wrong.
The falklands people speak English, have English citizenship, are of English descent and wish to be part of England. That is the end of it. Argentina has absolutely zero claim to the islands.
the majority of the thousands of people living on this island at the time considered themselves british, i understand this. britain has a legitimate stake in that territory. it is at least the british living there, maybe even their possessions. but i don't think that is necessarily sufficient to establish that argentinia has zero claim to the territory in this scenario. nor do i think taking such a stance would necessarily help in finding the optimal way of solving a dispute.
and at the very least i think it's detrimental to limit yourself to that approach when you are trying to understand such an incident that happened in the past.
we don't think that claim to some territory at any given period in time with arbitrary length is only based on who lives the closest to the territory in that period. it can be a useful abstraction in a lot of less dynamic cases, but probably not so much in cases similar to this one.
a nations claim to land is based purely on the population who lives there. this is the idea that underpins the end of empires. no matter your military or economic might (regional or global) it is the people, and their right to self determination that decides the borders of countries.
this is why mexico doesnt have a claim on texas, the uk doesnt have a claim on the united states and argentina doesnt have a claim on the falklands. with the idea of nationalism and nation states developed from the beginning of the 20th century the slate of history was wiped clean. the people decided who was to govern them, and the people of the falklands chose the british government.
good post, but i would like to put some numbers on your examples to make it clear how one is so not like the other that i think you should pick it up with special gloves, and use special glasses when you examine it.
mexico to texas, zilch km, population ratio ~ 6:1. no distance, comparable population size. uk to the united states, ~ 5900 km, population ratio ~ 1:5. very long distance, comparable population size. argentinia to the falklands, ~ 800 km, ~ 15 000 : 1, relatively short distance, uncomparable population size. lets consider time as well for this last one, four - five generations to hundreds.
norway is over double the length of argentinia to the falklands, with a population ratio of ~ 10:1. i can see why the argentinian people would think they have a legitimate claim to the territory using the same logic you use. they have been living there. there is not a point, it is a region.
regardless of claim bringing those two thousand brits to britain compared to casualties and money spent on the war (~3 bn pounds) does not seem like it was just complete and utter garbage. it was also a topic of discussion leading up to the war, as shown in the previous article.
my approach is probably not, as remarked on before by another island, a sensible approach in general. in this scenario it is rational when determining whether or not the war was justified and/or avoidable.
Why is this hard for you to understand?
You do not have a claim to land based on it's proximity to your own or the even more stupid reason that you have more people or money than them. That is the justification used by every empire, imperialist, tyrant, dictator and conqueror to ever walk the earth.
The self determination of the people is all that matters.
Perhaps if you could actually speak English we could discuss this better.
There really is such a thing as a claim to land based on proximity; however, Argentina is not even close enough to the Falklands that Las Malvinas could be considered within their Exclusive Economic Zone.
On April 11 2013 04:36 Klive5ive wrote: Well done Ed Miliband, I'm not usually a fan but this was brilliant. He's the Leader of the opposition (the party opposing Thatcher's conservatives). -snip- If only the rest of England had as much decency.
Ed's speach was nothing short of a show of moderatism, and they're not the party opposing Thatcher's conservatives but rather they're opposing Cameron's. In fact, finding any leading member of the labour party who wouldn't suck up to Thatcher would be quite impressive. Kinnock, Blair, Brown. Peter Mandelson summed up new Labour with the quote "we are all Thatcherites now". -source
On April 10 2013 06:17 oneofthem wrote: nunez's approach is interesting to entertain as an idealization. let's all sit down at the table and divide out fair share according to who's closer and who 'needs' it more.
but if we are to go that far, might as well get rid of borders altogether.
yes, i realize it is not an effective solution to settle disputes. and it's not an approach i would generally follow. in this scenario i thought it wouldn't be oversimplifying too much.
now, looking back, covered in bile, i guess i was mistaken.
edit: my initial post was a reaction to calling the war justified. i'm not sure it was, my knee jerk reaction is to think that it was not justified, but unfortunate. a lot of people seem to think this opinion is garbage, or i am failing to communicate. both equally probable.
Bear in mind that Argentina was the aggressor. They might of thought that the islands should belong to them but they knew full well that they were invading foreign territory.
yes, i am aware of this. they considered, and rightfully so, i initially thought, that territory to be theirs. not that it alone would justify an invasion. probably a terrible decision on their part.
but i am not sure it had to come to that, in which case the conflict would not be in my eyes justified, but unfortunate. not something you parade about like an achievement or good policy, but rather something that had to be done because of your shortcomings as a leader.
maybe it did, and i'm plain wrong.
The falklands people speak English, have English citizenship, are of English descent and wish to be part of England. That is the end of it. Argentina has absolutely zero claim to the islands.
the majority of the thousands of people living on this island at the time considered themselves british, i understand this. britain has a legitimate stake in that territory. it is at least the british living there, maybe even their possessions. but i don't think that is necessarily sufficient to establish that argentinia has zero claim to the territory in this scenario. nor do i think taking such a stance would necessarily help in finding the optimal way of solving a dispute.
and at the very least i think it's detrimental to limit yourself to that approach when you are trying to understand such an incident that happened in the past.
we don't think that claim to some territory at any given period in time with arbitrary length is only based on who lives the closest to the territory in that period. it can be a useful abstraction in a lot of less dynamic cases, but probably not so much in cases similar to this one.
a nations claim to land is based purely on the population who lives there. this is the idea that underpins the end of empires. no matter your military or economic might (regional or global) it is the people, and their right to self determination that decides the borders of countries.
this is why mexico doesnt have a claim on texas, the uk doesnt have a claim on the united states and argentina doesnt have a claim on the falklands. with the idea of nationalism and nation states developed from the beginning of the 20th century the slate of history was wiped clean. the people decided who was to govern them, and the people of the falklands chose the british government.
good post, but i would like to put some numbers on your examples to make it clear how one is so not like the other that i think you should pick it up with special gloves, and use special glasses when you examine it.
mexico to texas, zilch km, population ratio ~ 6:1. no distance, comparable population size. uk to the united states, ~ 5900 km, population ratio ~ 1:5. very long distance, comparable population size. argentinia to the falklands, ~ 800 km, ~ 15 000 : 1, relatively short distance, uncomparable population size. lets consider time as well for this last one, four - five generations to hundreds.
norway is over double the length of argentinia to the falklands, with a population ratio of ~ 10:1. i can see why the argentinian people would think they have a legitimate claim to the territory using the same logic you use. they have been living there. there is not a point, it is a region.
regardless of claim bringing those two thousand brits to britain compared to casualties and money spent on the war (~3 bn pounds) does not seem like it was just complete and utter garbage. it was also a topic of discussion leading up to the war, as shown in the previous article.
my approach is probably not, as remarked on before by another island, a sensible approach in general. in this scenario it is rational when determining whether or not the war was justified and/or avoidable.
Why is this hard for you to understand?
You do not have a claim to land based on it's proximity to your own or the even more stupid reason that you have more people or money than them. That is the justification used by every empire, imperialist, tyrant, dictator and conqueror to ever walk the earth.
The self determination of the people is all that matters.
Perhaps if you could actually speak English we could discuss this better.
i do understand. however i think your definition of proximity and people are too narrow in this case.
enough with the petulance, it's not nice. or at least make your insults entertaining so it will be worthwhile for me to endure them.
On April 11 2013 03:26 oneofthem wrote: but in this particular instance argentina's invasion was very bad, and their nationalistic attitude about it partially made a better solution impossible.
if the scenario begins with the invasion it would probably very hard, but it could be valuable to look a bit further back than that. there was probably already communication going on between britain and argentinia, a 'glhf' of sorts.
Miliband's a rather decent speaker, and that was quite decent, not antagonistic, but not papering over all the cracks and making her out to be some kind of saint.
On April 11 2013 08:24 Wombat_NI wrote: Miliband's a rather decent speaker, and that was quite decent, not antagonistic, but not papering over all the cracks and making her out to be some kind of saint.
Miliband had great potential as a politician, i could have seen him being one of labour's best leaders for a long time, but then he listened to his party and now spends his time bitching about everything the government does without coming up with any ideas of his own. I hate it when politicians become too inducted into that horrible seedy little world.
I don't know really, I think Milliband, his 'real' views and all that are something the public would be receptive to, but he's far too afraid/advised to avoid mentioning them. People are still raging at the previous Labour government so perhaps that is electorally smart, but simply being a slightly more moderate Conservative party doesn't get my pulse racing at all.
Tbh even disliking Cameron policies i have to say that as a party leader he appears much more experienced (admittedly he is) and generally much more in control than Milliband. Labour in general looks like they've had almost a cult of personality at the upper levels in recent years as compared to Blair and Brown, Miliband seems to lack confidence and even drive and vision, but i think he has the drive and vision but is just to flustered to be able to show it. The result is he ends up looking like a sniveling version of Salmond who tells you about great things for scotland but no details.
The funny thing is if Cameron wasn't a Tory i would definitely vote for him because he actually looks composed, and a "i actually know what i'm doing" which is suprisingly lacking in British politics
On April 11 2013 04:36 Klive5ive wrote: Well done Ed Miliband, I'm not usually a fan but this was brilliant. He's the Leader of the opposition (the party opposing Thatcher's conservatives). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hPEwKwFx8Q If only the rest of England had as much decency.
I'm sure some people will mourne her, sad for them.
on my part, im glad she's gone, she was against progress, against collective rights, against socialism. and to those who think she was feminist, She hated feminism (she did call it "poison").
R.I.P. Chavez (Isn't it ironical? when chavez died some people jumped on the occasion to denigrate his work, the same people now ask for "decency" towards tatcher...)
its kinda sad that it looks like the entire house that was against her showed up but she had barely any at all on her side of the house.
british people be crazy with their government. you can talk when other people are talking? would make cspan a hell of a lot more interesting.
Wow. She really trys to say that thatcher really wasn't a women to her. Says all this during the whole "tribute to thatcher hour" and then some conservative guy spends the last minute of that video complaining about her debateing style for some reason.
Even though I highly dislike the legacy and the works of Augusto Pinochet, which was very close and thought very similarly to Margaret Thatcher, I can't do anything but to say RIP to her. It's truly disgusting when people celebrate the deaths of human beings.
On the economic achievements and failures of Margaret Thatcher
I was not going to write anything on Mrs T, but then I just happened to read yesterday a journal article that says something important about her legacy today. I also decided to write something to challenge some of the myths and taboos created by the political right and left. The right in the UK tends to mythologise Margaret Thatcher, in a similar way I think the right in the US does with Ronald Reagan. So its worth pointing out two major macroeconomic errors that were made while she was Prime Minister. The left is less inclined to hero worship its own Prime Ministers (generally it does the opposite), but it has its own taboos when it comes to macroeconomic history.
What was the journal article? It is a paper [1] that looks at the causal impact of fathers' job loss on their children's educational attainment and later economic outcomes. The place and time is the UK recession of the early 1980s. The study concludes: “Children with fathers who were identified as being displaced did significantly worse in terms of their GCSE attainment than those with non-displaced fathers.” Not a very surprising result, but further evidence of the long term damage done by high and prolonged unemployment (what macroeconomists call hysteresis effects).
The UK recession at the beginning of the 1980s was the worst since the second world war. UK unemployment increased dramatically, from below 6% to nearly 12%, and stayed high until the end of the decade. The chart below boxes the Thatcher years. (Unemployment would have been higher still if the government had not encouraged the unemployed to register as disabled, as John Van Reenen relates and even George Osborne admits.)
UK Unemployment
Did the government led by Margaret Thatcher intend for this to happen? Almost certainly not. Their plan involved replacing traditional macroeconomic policy by monetarism, which meant gradually declining targets for the growth of a particular monetary aggregate. As Chris Dillow points out, they expected this would lead to a steady decline in inflation, with a minor and temporary dislocation in terms of output.
Many thought that a foolish thing to believe at the time, but in macroeconomic terms Mrs Thatcher’s administration were revolutionaries who despised conventional wisdom. When presented with Treasury forecasts telling them with unusual accuracy what would happen, they rubbished the Treasury advice. As unemployment rose rapidly, and many in her party urged her to change course, she gave her famous ‘this lady’s not for turning’ speech that is so eulogised by some Conservatives today.
The attempt to hit their monetary targets failed dismally: 81/80 target money growth 7-11%, actual 19.1%, 82/81 target growth 6-10%, actual 13.7%. After that monetary targets were effectively abandoned. One of the biggest experiments in UK macroeconomic policy turned out to be a disastrous failure. As GDP fell by over 2% in 1980, and remained flat in 1981, and manufacturing output fell by 15% in two years, it is not surprising that inflation fell rapidly, although too many on the left believed it would not.
Yet, as I have noted before, this period is regarded by many as Mrs. Thatcher triumphing over doubters, including most academic economists. This myth may be partly responsible for the current government's obstinacy about austerity. So how can it be regarded as a triumph? Output did recover - well of course it did, but as the chart shows unemployment stayed persistently high, with the long run costs that I noted above. Inflation came down rapidly, but far more rapidly than was intended.
Was this unintended cold turkey cure in any sense optimal? I think that is highly unlikely for many reasons. One is that the traded sector bore the main cost of the recession. The period coincided with North Sea oil coming on stream, which in itself would have led to an appreciation in sterling and a movement of resources away from the traded sector. In these circumstances, embarking on a policy that produced a further appreciation in classic Dornbush overshooting style led to the very uneven recession. Now the Dornbusch analysis was fairly new, so perhaps the government can be forgiven for not anticipating that this would happen, but by 1980 it was all pretty clear what was going on, and that was the point at which the lady refused to turn.
But the key point remains that this skewed, cold turkey policy to reduce inflation was never part of the plan. The plan itself was a complete failure, and if you think the outcome was optimal (which I do not) then that is down to luck rather than judgement.
The second failure involved North Sea oil. I have compared how the UK and Norway responded to additional government revenue from North Sea oil before. The Norwegian government created a sovereign wealth fund, so that the gains from North Sea oil could be enjoyed by future generations. The UK government thought the people should make that choice, and so cut taxes. The people, for one reason or another, do not appear to have invested that money to replicate what a sovereign wealth fund would do. So Mrs Thatcher made the wrong choice, and whether it was for ideological reasons or more base electoral considerations is secondary. It was a major mistake that current and future generations will pay for.
Those are two major failures, but what about the successes? The Thatcher era saw the implementation of supply side reforms that ended and then reversed the relative decline of UK productivity. As Paul Krugman has pointed out, the lags here need to be long, but I think we have good reason to believe that they are. As Nick Crafts outlines here, and John Van Reenen here, this improvement came about partly through increased goods market competition, but of course it also reflected a reduction in union power that was one of the major aims of government policy. The taboo on the left is not to admit (at least publicly) that UK trade unions had grown too powerful in the 1970s, and that any benefits this had were outweighed by inefficiency and often severe dislocation.
The battles of the 1980s, and the path Mrs Thatcher took, were not inevitable, and it is possible that the UK could have moved to something like the German model where unions retain a strong presence. However the path followed by the UK is at least partly the responsibility of the left as well as the right: some of the proposals later introduced by Mrs Thatcher were first tabled by the 1969 Labour government and Barbara Castle, and were defeated by the Trade Union Congress and the later Labour Prime Minister Jim Callaghan.
This post is not meant to be comprehensive: I have said nothing about the rise in poverty under Mrs Thatcher (briefly mentioned here), inequality more generally and the role that taxation had in increasing that (of which the poll tax was just one example), selling off state assets or under investing in what was left. (Van Reenen gives more detail on some of these.) A second major UK macroeconomic disaster also occurred right at the end of her premiership. The UK entered into the European Exchange Rate Mechanism at an overvalued exchange rate, which led to another major recession. That story, and my own very small part in it, will have to wait for another time.
EPT
Had she been born in the USA she would have made a scary ruthless intelligent president.
![[image loading]](http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2013/04/Mfring-share-of-GDP-Minack.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://aspoireland.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/us-and-uk-oil-production1.png?w=500&h=333)
![[image loading]](http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41029000/gif/_41029086_disposable_income416.gif)
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/72070179/UKUnemp.JPG)
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/72070179/UKincome.PNG)
![[image loading]](http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2013/04/blogs/graphic-detail/20130413_gdc402_1.png)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/The_Sun_%28Gotcha%29.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/a2macro-unemployment1.png)
![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/04/08/opinion/040813krugman6/040813krugman6-blog480.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.leftfootforward.org/images/2012/01/Manufacturing-as-a-percentage-of-GDP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_iOgq209adXo/TAzelBxKNLI/AAAAAAAAAEo/eegUonABw98/s1600/poor-get-richer2.JPG)
![[image loading]](https://lh3.ggpht.com/-3ka6SYv8tvo/UWV9ZzuZO_I/AAAAAAAAAP4/ZtO_PnvNS_k/s1600/UK+unemployment.jpg)
