***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 5 *****
Continuing debate about Maggie's recent death.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 19 Apr 13 at 01:31
|
Village church to get Thatcher memorial
www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/10354621.Village_church_to_get_Thatcher_memorial/
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 15 Apr 13 at 21:28
|
|
will Dennis Thatcher be ellidgable for bedroom tax now?
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 15 Apr 13 at 21:28
|
It depends upon how many rooms there are under there---
He died on 26 June at Westminster's Lister Hospital in London.
His ashes were buried under a white marble marker just outside the Royal Hospital, Chelsea
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 15 Apr 13 at 21:28
|
>> It depends upon how many rooms there are under there---
>>
>> He died on 26 June
...2003.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 15 Apr 13 at 21:28
|
|
under rooms...? they taxable
|
>Realisation that I was right came later with eighties.
Bromp,
Did this realisation that you were right, and anyone who disagreed with you was therefore wrong, come in a sudden flash of brilliance or did it come gradually after you had stopped reading the Yorkshire Post?
|
>> Bromp,
>>
>> Did this realisation that you were right, and anyone who disagreed with you was therefore
>> wrong, come in a sudden flash of brilliance or did it come gradually after you
>> had stopped reading the Yorkshire Post?
Whatever the tone I regard these discussions as an exchange of opinions.
It's politics; no one is wrong.
Just that some are sadly or even seriously misguided :-P
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 15 Apr 13 at 22:06
|
>Whatever the tone I regard these discussions as an exchange of opinions.
>It's politics; no one is wrong.
Jeez, those Bromptons have a strong reverse gear don't they?
>Just that some are sadly or even seriously misguided :-P
Well, at least we agree on one point.
|
>> Jeez, those Bromptons have a strong reverse gear don't they?
I was trying to be err, emollient.
No reversal of my previous posts is intended or implied. Politics are a matter of opinion.
The facts upon which opinion is based are open to interpretation and correction and will always be so.
Oh, and have a fairly assertive tone yourself :-P
|
>I was trying to be err, emollient.
I was trying to rub it in.
|
It's trite to state it, but if it was as simple as right and wrong we wouldn't be where we are.
The other problem with the right and wrong approach is that it leads to a lot of unconstructive efforts to blame somebody for everything, which seems to be a British speciality.
|
Now that we are having this "non state" funeral for Maggie, are we setting a precedent that for every ex PM who dies now, they will also get the same treatment and same expenditure?
Who makes the decision, who made this decision?
Genuine question, I can just see in x years, well we did it for Maggie so we need to do it for x,y or z?
|
>> Now that we are having this "non state" funeral for Maggie, are we setting a
>> precedent that for every ex PM who dies now, they will also get the same
>> treatment and same expenditure?
The ceremonial funeral was announced within a few hours of her death and seems to be product of cross party discussion in her lifetime.
Personally I'd have no problem with something similar but slightly more low key for other PMs Major, Blair, Brown or for Callaghan, Heath or Wilson etc. Either you're an ex PM or not
But if it's about merit then frankly Thatcher should prostrate herself before Churchill and
Atlee.
|
If you want a grand funeral - pay for it from your estate.
If your estate cant afford a funeral - donate your corpse for medical research.
Guess into which bracket we fall!
|
>> If you want a grand funeral - pay for it from your estate.
>> If your estate cant afford a funeral - donate your corpse for medical research.
>> Guess into which bracket we fall!
My aunt and uncle have offered their mortal remains. Research of course means medical students learning anatomy and dissection.
The other thing that has been made clear to them is that their bodies won't be accepted unless they are "in good condition" which they found hilarious. That doesn't just mean not smashed up, there's quite a list of diseases that disqualify too.
|
>> My aunt and uncle have offered their mortal remains.
>> Research of course means medical students learning anatomy and dissection.
>>
My daughter and all her fellow med students always had the greatest of thanks for all those who have done this. Each year there was a special thanks service for all those donors.
>> The other thing that has been made clear to them is that their bodies won't
>> be accepted unless they are "in good condition" which they found hilarious.
>>
My daughter told me that younger examples are preferred.
In the past, I was told that the cheapest funeral was the cost of a call to a medical school as all other costs are paid for by the med school.
Not sure if this still applies
|
>> But if it's about merit then frankly Thatcher should prostrate herself before Churchill and
>> Atlee.
I think Clem Attlee was a decent man who, unusually for a politician, had beliefs &principles.
I think Churchill was an inspiring leader, but a bit light on principles!
Margaret Thatcher had both principles and leadership. Right or wrong according to your own beliefs.
One Labour politician I met a couple of times was George Thomas, later Lord Tonypandy.
I respected him.
Last edited by: Roger on Mon 15 Apr 13 at 23:43
|
|
Of course it isn't about 'merit'. It's about 'scale'.
|
Not original but culled from letters page of tonight's Standard,
The performance of Ding Dong the Witch is Dead must not be barred: free speech and all that.
However, the relevant parts of the cast should have the sound of their voices cut while their words are voiced by an actor.
That way the villains will be denied the oxygen of publicity.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 15 Apr 13 at 23:50
|
|
With the ding dong of Big Ben being silenced as well.......
|
Who is going to watch the big parade on Telly tomorrow?
Me? doubt it - frankly the whole thing is starting to get on my tits
|
The whole thing has been on everyone's tits for thirty or forty years. We ought to be used to it by now.
I will certainly look at it. But then I am a news addict, slightly ambivalent about the event itself. I hope people will behave decently of course but that will make the spectacle more boring.
We were going to be in London from this evening but a mild indisposition being suffered by herself has led to a change of plan. Can't say I'm not relieved in a way.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 16 Apr 13 at 13:38
|
|
I can categorically state I'll not be watching. I'll avoid the telly news too on that day as well.
|
Might be able to nip down to Fleet St to see cortege pass.
It is however the monthly board day at work so I'm in meetings from 11:00 until 16:00. If there's a flap on getting visitors in through the traffic chaos I may be on phone and running round on crisis control duty.
Not likley to see another PM get this sort of treatment in my lifetime.
|
|
after boston seems a good idea to stay away from crowds
|
|
Quite the opposite, z. Balls to them. Chances of being involved in any incident are still vanishingly small. Thinking of taking my family to see the London marathon just to stick two fingers up at them, frankly. Wouldn't have considered it normally. We survived several trips to the Olympics.
|
>> With the ding dong of Big Ben being silenced as well.......
Very fitting. She hated anything that would strike.
|
Another piece lifted from elsewhere, this time a Law Gazette Blog
She was famous for this saying about her policies – TINA, there is no alternative. Tina was always a figure of redemption fantasy. Replace Tina with a real person, J-Lo – Just Look Overseas.
|
Brompton, you are priceless. You should be preserved for the nation, or given a TV show! I've been catching up on this thread, having not been 'here' for a couple of days and have laughed like a drain at some of your comments. Please, chaps, keep this thread going for its pure comedy value!
|
>> Brompton, you are priceless. You should be preserved for the nation, or given a TV
>> show! I've been catching up on this thread, having not been 'here' for a couple
>> of days and have laughed like a drain at some of your comments. Please, chaps,
>> keep this thread going for its pure comedy value!
>>
The pleasure is entirely reciprocated by my reading the posts of the Magster's devotees.
Perhaps a double act?
I'm Bromp, he's Mapmaker and we're here all week.
|
I think the other half of your double act is your twenty-year-old daughter who is at some fourth-rate ex-Polytechnic reading politics and has read a couple of books on the 80s, and so would know more about it than anybody who lived through it...
|
>> I think the other half of your double act is your twenty-year-old daughter who is
>> at some fourth-rate ex-Polytechnic reading politics and has read a couple of books on the
>> 80s, and so would know more about it than anybody who lived through it...
Do you try to be offensive or does it come naturally.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 16 Apr 13 at 21:11
|
|
Is this London club you like to boast about, MM, the kind that requires you to have any social skills? What's the problem - can't win the argument, so resort to being gratuitously offensive?
|
I have a London Club?
It was Brompton who pointed out that his daughter had as good a grasp of the 70s as those who lived through it, on account of her A-level in politics; not me. Risible (and no I didn't live through the 70s in the way our older members did).
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 16 Apr 13 at 21:39
|
>> not me. Risible (and no I didn't live through the 70s in the way our
>> older members did).
I did. I started work in the miners strike era, on strike demanding 43% pay rises. I also remember the winter of discontent. or rather the smell.
MM is right in one respect, all the "a" level politics students of today have no idea, the only knowledge being revisionist rubbish by left leaning lecturers. They have no grasp of what went on.
Which makes all the "parties" they have been holding particularly risible, making them look foolish and poorly educated.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 16 Apr 13 at 21:53
|
>> I did. I started work in the miners strike era, on strike demanding 43% pay
>> rises. I also remember the winter of discontent. or rather the smell.
>>
Element of revisionism on your part there Z.
43% looks absurd today but equivalent to twice the inflation rate at the time so like demanding 5% right now. Unrealistic for sure but as an opening gambit with 30% (3%now) as a fall-back it looks quite reasonable.
|
You think twice the inflation rate is reasonable as a pay rise and justifies going on strike? TWICE in two years?
It was at that point the country realised they were parasites sucking the country dry.
|
>> You think twice the inflation rate is reasonable as a pay rise and justifies going
>> on strike? TWICE in two years?
No. I think inflation and a bit is reasonable for people in a dirty and dangerous job who's pay relative to others had been eroded in preceding years. The pay round was and is annual. If negotiations ain't going anywhere strikes, real or threatened, are part of the negotiators armoury irrespective of whether it's the second or twenty second year in succession.
I've no wish to see a return to that degree of confrontation but at some point the proportion of the nation's wealth going into wages needs to move back in the worker's favour.
|
> I've no wish to see a return to that degree of confrontation
I'll tick that one up as a small climbdown then.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 16 Apr 13 at 22:32
|
>> > I've no wish to see a return to that degree of confrontation
>>
>> I'll tick that one up as a small climbdown then.
No wish BUT......
No climbdown.
No time in human history was there really a land of milk and honey for all. I merely suggest the culmination of the postwar years in the seventies was not as dire, for the ordinary family, as the revisionists of the right/privilege would have us believe.
They want to preserve the milk/honey/gold they've accumulated since Thatcher.
|
>
>> all. I merely suggest the culmination of the postwar years in the seventies was not
>> as dire, for the ordinary family, as the revisionists of the right/privilege would have us
>> believe.
They were. It was a crap time for the country (it was seen as an international joke) with inflation killing living standards. One that you clearly have no knowledge of, or choose to forget, or deliberately wish to hide. I am not being revisionist, its living memory.
>> They want to preserve the milk/honey/gold they've accumulated since Thatcher.
Who? who are they? "they" haven't done you any harm, you have prospered since Thatcher, As have I, as have most on here.
|
>> They were. It was a crap time for the country (it was seen as an
>> international joke) with inflation killing living standards. One that you clearly have no knowledge of,
>> or choose to forget, or deliberately wish to hide. I am not being revisionist, its
>> living memory.
>>
>> >> They want to preserve the milk/honey/gold they've accumulated since Thatcher.
>>
>> Who? who are they? "they" haven't done you any harm, you have prospered since Thatcher,
>> As have I, as have most on here.
Something is killing living standards right now. Wages are not keeping pace with real increases in the price of stuff like food and fuel that people actually buy. The percent numbers may be a tenth of those in the seventies; the effect is the same.
For those whose wages kept pace with inflation, and I suspect that was most in employment at the time , then debts like mortgages were whittled away. Someone who stretched to buy a £10k house (at the time a detached 5 bed on a smart estate up North) in 1970 were taking foreign holidays *2 by 1978.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 16 Apr 13 at 23:38
|
>> numbers may be a tenth of those in the seventies; the effect is the same.
No its not by a long way. the effect is 90% less.
|
I worked at the NCB HQ (used to be in Victoria) from 74 to the late 80s, and was there throughout the many periods of industrial unrest, and often watched Joe Gormley, Derek Ezra, Arthur Scargill and Ian McGregor giving interviews to the press in the foyer after the important meetings. British Steel HQ was the next door building.
I remember the frequent picket lines, fairly hostile to us, and also the NUM coming down to Hobart Place in force on a number of occassions, giving us an enforced day off due to the violence that usually ensued.
I can go back through my pay slips, but there were definitely years when we got two pay rises due to inflation (on the back of the miners), and I recall one of them being a 26% rise. There were also "threshold payments" which i think wasn't solely in the Coal Board but were variable depending on inflation. In fact just found this
"In the meantime, Heath’s incomes policy had gone on to a considerably less restrictive stage 3. Among its provisions was a system of ‘threshold payments’ whereby workers would get 40 pence a week (1% of the wage of the average worker) added to their pay for each percentage point rise beyond 8% in the retail price index in the 12 months from October 1973." (from cje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/02/13/cje.ber046.full )
|
>
>>
>> "In the meantime, Heath’s incomes policy had gone on to a considerably less restrictive stage
>> 3. Among its provisions was a system of ‘threshold payments’ whereby workers would get 40
>> pence a week (1% of the wage of the average worker) added to their pay
>> for each percentage point rise beyond 8% in the retail price index in the 12
>> months from October 1973." (from cje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/02/13/cje.ber046.full )
Indeed. What we're arguing about now is responses to inflation at 15-25%. What caused that? Was it running at comparable levels in other nations with a similar economy?
Interesting piece by Hamish MacRae in yesterday's Standard suggested that demise of the Bretton-Woods agreement on exchange rates was the starting point.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 17 Apr 13 at 00:01
|
This was the same Mapmaker at 1252 on 3 April, wasn't it?
My budget above includes a ski holiday, a month in France, an iPhone and membership of a London Club. Year after year. It's not about hardship.
|
>> This was the same Mapmaker at 1252 on 3 April, wasn't it?
Somebody bring on the Mapmaker who spends a month annually in France?
|
>> >> This was the same Mapmaker at 1252 on 3 April, wasn't it?
>>
>> Somebody bring on the Mapmaker who spends a month annually in France?
Do you mean you typed it wrong, the quote is out of context or it's been edited?
|
>> It was Brompton who pointed out that his daughter had as good a grasp of
>> the 70s as those who lived through it, on account of her A-level in politics;
>> not me. Risible (and no I didn't live through the 70s in the way our
>> older members did).
I think, in response to someone suggesting my youth (53!!) disqualified me for speaking on the seventies, I referred in passing to my daughter's studies. If you can point me to where I said her grasp was as good as somebody who'd lived thru' I'd be grateful OTOH perhaps you're conflating my posts in what I usually regard as a friendly virtual bar.
Nothing excuses your reference a 'fourth rate ex polytechnic'. If you're the Oxbridge graduate you infer you should know much much better. If not then.....
|
I've kept quiet on this for fear of being hypocritical. I suppose I'd like to think of myself as morally on the left ( ish ) but I have to admit that the 80s was the best time of my life. Even halfwits like me could make a lot of money without working very hard. Sure it was a time of great change but if you were prepared to embrace that change and ride the economic surf it was a blast.
I don't claim to be clever enough to know whether it was a good or a bad thing in the end or indeed whether some form of radical change was actually inevitable in any event.
One thing for sure is that whoever or whatever you choose to blame for it, the country was in bits in the 70s and had to be re-vitalised somehow. No one else seemed to have a better idea at the time what to do about that so what happened did happen and the electorate voted for it and continued to do so. Hindsight is indeed 20/20 vision.
I hope those who philosophise over the 80s can also turn their attentions and intellects to the rather more pressing present issues. Those matters we can influence with luck. The past is done, for good or ill.
|
>> No one else seemed to have a better idea at the time what to do about
>> that so what happened did happen. . .
I beg to differ (hint - look to German economics)
>> . . . and the electorate voted for it and continued to do so. Hindsight is indeed 20/20 vision.
Indeed they did, though the Tories were helped by a divided opposition.
Plus, the ones who voted Tory were those who were not suffering the effects of Tory policies.
Such as Scotland - Disneyland as they used to joke. "It disney vote Tory, so it disney matter".
P.S I DO have a degree in politics and I DID live through the Thatcher era as an adult. Just saying.
|
>>
>> >> No one else seemed to have a better idea at the time what to
>> do about
>> >> that so what happened did happen. . .
>>
>> I beg to differ (hint - look to German economics)
even bigger hint, Germany was not in the same position as the UK at that time, (mostly due to events some 30 odd years earlier) so Its not a valid comparison.
|
>> even bigger hint, Germany was not in the same position as the UK at that
>> time, (mostly due to events some 30 odd years earlier) so Its not a valid
>> comparison.
But why was that? Heavy bombing did far more damage to Germany than the blitz did to UK.
If we'd adopted same co operative approach by BOTH sides of industry after 1945 (for avoidance of doubt the employer and employee sides were equally blind to this) we might have been in same place??
|
Some on here sound very left in terms of political views and therefore lots of others will not agree I guess. I think Zero and Bromptonaut will forever disagree. I can't be bothered contributing because life's too short - there will always be people who disagree.
At least the current government is trying to undo some of the problems the last terms of a labour government messed up. Forget the mess labour got us into in the 70s, they did similar in recent years too!
Who was it that set up some of the quangos? Was that labour or the Conservatives? Some are closing down - wonder if this is why Brompt is so anti Conservatives?
|
|
"The bonfire of the quangos"? Don't make me laugh.
|
>> "The bonfire of the quangos"? Don't make me laugh.
>>
Go on Roger, allow yourself a little chuckle.
From the BBC, 22 August 2012.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19338344
"More than 100 quangos have been axed and a further 90 merged into other bodies since the coalition came to power, ministers have said.
Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude said the cull of publicly funded agencies was on track to save £2.6bn by the end of this Parliament.
However, costs from the reorganisation, including redundancy payouts to staff affected, could be as high as £900m."
|
>> Who was it that set up some of the quangos? Was that labour or the
>> Conservatives? Some are closing down - wonder if this is why Brompt is so anti
>> Conservatives?
For the record I've been a 'lefty' personally since the seventies.
Governments of any persuasion create quangos because they actually want advice or service delivery to be at arm's length from political accountability (ie blame). The quango to which I'm seconded from a major Dept of State was established under a Conservative administration and re-invigorated with extended remit under Labour.
If it is finally abolished I'll be either re-deployed or made redundant on terms I'd happily accept.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 17 Apr 13 at 00:57
|
>>But why was that?
Partly because their spending on defence and military, including air force and navy was £0.
|
And partly because the Germans were frugal, used their Marshal Aid money wisely and rebuilt their industry, society and housing well.
Meanwhile As victors we had a war to pay for, and a succession of useless governments of both parties to squander our Marshall Aid.
And that is why, you cant compare the situation with Germany. its Apples and Birne
|
I lived through the Thatcher era, working in private industry in the “affluent” south. It became almost a joke trying to plan for lack of components caused by non-delivery of raw materials, finished parts or lack of electrical power. All caused by strikes, secondary picketing etc.
We knew that our pay rises would not keep pace with the rate of inflation, let alone the pay rises demanded by miners, etc. Still, we weren’t being paid by the national purse; we had to sell in competitive markets to earn our crust and high pay rises would have killed our sales. In effect our standard of living fell, helped, of course by the constant rise in interest rates.
My father, father in law and mother in law all succumbed to dementia to varying degrees. To watch their bodies being taken over by a stranger with no mental resemblance to the previous occupant was heartbreaking to both family and friends. I know little of Margaret Thatcher’s family or friends but they have my sympathy for the experience that they have gone through.
I also have some sympathy (not a lot) for those who think that chanting some child’s song from a film and wanting to dance on her grave shows any measure of mature protest at her demise. Their lives must be so sad that they find any satisfaction at all in celebrating the death of another human being.
|
A thought for the day:
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
|
Walked to end of Chancery Lane to see cortege pass. Nice view of the backs of the heads of the entire population of Legal London.
Just caught sighjt of a guardsman's plume and the flowers on the coffin. The band was good though.
Bloke in front of me turned his back.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 17 Apr 13 at 10:56
|
"If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing"
"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left"
|
>> "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well,
>> if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left"
>>
Either that or you're just not listening, Maggie.
|
... somewhat to my relief. Just a few courteous, restrained catcalls from the very unforgiving.
Perhaps we aren't such carp after all.
(I wonder if Carol Thatcher's boy friend ever expected to shake hands with the monarch? He could have combed his hair I thought).
(Tony Blair stood at the top of the St Paul's steps like a subsidiary chief mourner, shaking hands with a succession of iron-faced Eurocrats, Americans, spooks and so on. Not shy is he?)
|
I see that Thatcher's views of Britain haven't changed at all.
The general public were required to stand. Her friends and admirers were given chairs.
And she got a box.
|
>> I see that Thatcher's views of Britain haven't changed at all.
>>
>> The general public were required to stand. Her friends and admirers were given chairs.
>>
>> And she got a box.
And 4000 police to guard it. Well, I'll be hornswoggled. www.express.co.uk/news/uk/392502/4-000-police-guard-Margaret-Thatcher-s-coffin-Massive-security-operation-for-funeral
Last edited by: L'escargot on Wed 17 Apr 13 at 14:31
|
>>>Tony Blair stood at the top of the St Paul's steps like a subsidiary chief mourner, shaking hands with a succession of iron-faced Eurocrats, Americans, spooks and so on. Not shy is he?
That didn't go unnoticed in this house.
Anyway it seems Amanda is the new Pippa.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/amanda-thatcher-iron-ladys-granddaughter-1837216
|
>> >>>Tony Blair stood at the top of the St Paul's steps like a subsidiary chief
>> mourner, shaking hands with a succession of iron-faced Eurocrats, Americans, spooks and so on. Not
>> shy is he?
>>
>> That didn't go unnoticed in this house.
...or this one
|
>>>> >>>Tony Blair stood at the top of the St Paul's steps like a subsidiary chief
>> mourner, shaking hands with a succession of iron-faced Eurocrats, Americans, spooks and so on. Not
>> shy is he?
>>
>> That didn't go unnoticed in this house<<
Nor here. Horrid little war monger could have had the decency to go low-key but alas he is who he is.
|
|
......... and Broon the loon had come out of hiding as well.
|
|
Steady on chaps. They both had to be there.
|
|
I knew that La Carol has a partner but I was surprised to find that it was a man with bad hair.
|
>> I knew that La Carol has a partner but I was surprised to find that
>> it was a man with bad hair.
Looked like quite a good head of hair to me, curly and unruly but not shoulder length biker stylee.
Certainly more that a fair few here can manage.........
|
>> I knew that La Carol has a partner but I was surprised to find that
>> it was a man with bad hair.
La Carol's hair was just a mess!
|
>> La Carol's hair was just a mess!
>>
I feel for her, i believe she's a nice woman but not suited to being in the spotlight, as are most of us, certainly i'd be well out of my comfort zone.
Must have been a strange maturing for Mark and Carol, thrust into a hostile media frenzy at every turn.
|
"Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee. "
Thanks CG - a very apt quote - always reminds me of my Dad who was a great John Donne fan.....brings a tear to the eye.
P
|
witness.guardian.co.uk/assignment/516e3c1de4b049aa25e5e87b/278535
Well it was a torrential downpour and not a site with significant public footfall....
|
The Bishop of London, in a well considered speech, said, inter alia -
"Today the remains of the real Margaret Hilda Thatcher are here at her funeral service. Lying here, she is one of us, subject to the common destiny of all human beings."
|
|
Was he arguing that yesterday's circus was a good thing or a bad one?
|
The Matt cartoon on p 3 of today's comic - the Thatchergraph as it has been for the last week - is very funny. If it doesn't make you laugh you have no soul.
|
>> The Matt cartoon on p 3 of today's comic - the Thatchergraph as it has
>> been for the last week - is very funny. If it doesn't make you laugh
>> you have no soul.
Telegraph not my usual fare AC so thanks for flagging that.
Particularly apt in view of Gideon's display of emotion yesterday.
|
>> Particularly apt in view of Gideon's display of emotion yesterday.
>>
George had good reason for his tears -
www.thedailymash.co.uk/features/agony-aunt/i-appeared-to-be-sobbing-like-a-jessie-over-thatcher-2013041865956
|
I fall into the neutral category, some good, some bad. She introduced many policies that I didn’t agree with (particularly the flogging off of council houses and Poll tax) but the problem is people tend to forget how bad things really were by 1979. Rubbish piling up in the streets, the deceased left unburied, the economy in the hands of the IMF, unions holding much of industry by the throat. Britain was well and truly broken. Difficult problems unfortunately needed unpleasant remedies.
Regarding the point about subsidising the coal industry. Not everything can be subjected to the harsh and often crude market forces. I perfectly accept that it cost more to extract than its market value but was that anymore of a cost than paying money out on redundancy, unemployment benefits and all the social and health problems of having long-term unemployed. I’m sure the Tebbit view would be to get on yer bike but it’s easy for resourced people to say that. For many such people the opportunity was not available.
There’s as much hypocrisy on the Right of politics as the Left. Thatcher was keen to subject areas of the economy she didn’t like to market forces but equally chose to subsidise those that she did. Mortgage tax relief for example.
One point that the annoying left-wing people conveniently forget is that Thatcher was voted in three times by the electorate, on two occasions with significant majorities. When she left office in 1990 it was some of her own shameless disloyal party members who removed her, not the electorate.
The Left also conveniently ignore the fact that Thatcherite, non-interventionist, supply-side policies have been pretty much adopted throughout the West, to a greater or lesser extent. As much as I resent some of the more extreme elements to capitalism, no-one has come up with a viable alternative, not even those vocal nutters we’ve seen demonstrating this last week.
The recent distasteful street celebrations have perfectly demonstrated why the ghastly hard left-wing needs to be totally obliterated from the political scene.
I doubt Thatcher would have had so much success without the considerable help offered to her on a plate by the likes of Foot, Galtieri, Scargill and Kinnock. The SDP Liberal Alliance also did her a huge favour by splitting the opposition vote which was a phenomenal help with the FPTP electoral system.
Imagine a country lead by Kinnock or that donkey-jacket clad Foot. Above all else, Thatcher saved us from those two. Even if you disagreed with everything else she did, that alone is a worthy of massive credit.
So that’s my view, some good, some bad. Same as anyone else, then.
May she rest in peace.
Last edited by: Xileno on Thu 18 Apr 13 at 18:31
|
>> Imagine a country lead by Kinnock or that donkey-jacket clad Foot. Above all else, Thatcher saved us from those two. Even if you disagreed with everything else she did, that alone is a worthy of massive credit.
I can, easily, and voted for it when I could. It wouldn't have made that much difference to the country. The same things would have had to be done sooner or later. Who can tell now which would have been better? Water under the bridge, different world. New paradigm, sort of. Whatever.
I thought people behaved well over the funeral in the event, after much discussion. I'm impressed.
|
|
I would rather not have run the risk of facing a rocket launcher head-on with a pitch fork though.
|
@ Xileno,
Much of that is, albeit different to my own thinking, fair comment.
There's a bit of a contradiction though between 'annoying left wing people' forgetting she was voted in three times and the later admission that FPTP combined with Galtieri and others gifted her majorities out of all proportion to her popular support.
I'd also question whether the street celebrations yesterday had much to do with the 'hard left wing' who've anyway fractured themselves to irrelevance. MT was and remained to the end a person who's name could divide friends and start a fight in an empty room.
As you say coal has a financial and strategic value way beyond a short term profit and loss account. Yet an industry which had that value and supported whole communities for 150yrs was wiped out for ever in half a decade. Ordinary people who's lives are still blighted 25 years later as the long term folly of the 'dash for gas' for electricity generation becomes more evident by the day genuinely resent her, her government and its actions. The theory that there was an element of revenge for the defeat of Heath has sufficient grain of truth to put it beyond refute.
Foot was an intellectual not a leader only elected because he was decent and neither Benn nor Healey. He looked scruffy whatever he wore.
Kinnock OTOH was courageous - remember his excoriation of the Trots at conference? He'd have pulled it off OK if he'd won as expected in 1992.
|
>> As you say coal has a financial and strategic value way beyond a short term
>> profit and loss account. Yet an industry which had that value and supported whole communities
>> for 150yrs was wiped out for ever in half a decade. Ordinary people who's lives
>> are still blighted 25 years later as the long term folly of the 'dash for
>> gas' for electricity generation becomes more evident by the day genuinely resent her, her government
>> and its actions. The theory that there was an element of revenge for the defeat
>> of Heath has sufficient grain of truth to put it beyond refute.
Perhaps if the miners hadn't gone on strike and held the country to ransom so many times they may have still have jobs, I for one have no sympathy for them, they deserved what they got
>> Kinnock OTOH was courageous - remember his excoriation of the Trots at conference? He'd have
>> pulled it off OK if he'd won as expected in 1992.
>>
Kinnock would never ever have become prime minister.
Last edited by: Skip on Thu 18 Apr 13 at 20:46
|
>> >> As you say coal has a financial and strategic value way beyond a short
>> term
>> >> profit and loss account. Yet an industry which had that value and supported whole
>> communities
>> >> for 150yrs was wiped out for ever in half a decade. Ordinary people who's
>> lives
>> >> are still blighted 25 years later as the long term folly of the 'dash
>> for
>> >> gas' for electricity generation becomes more evident by the day genuinely resent her, her
>> government
>> >> and its actions. The theory that there was an element of revenge for the
>> defeat
>> >> of Heath has sufficient grain of truth to put it beyond refute.
Honestly, deep seam coal had no financial advantage then and even less now. France no longer mines it, (and they has 5 x the number of miners we had) and Germany is shutting down its last deep seam pits in the next three years. Open cast coal is a 5th of the price landed.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 18 Apr 13 at 20:49
|
|
That truly appalling performance at the 1992 Leeds gathering stopped dead any chance of Kinnock becoming PM. I knew Labour campaigners who felt that their weeks (months?) of hard work had been wiped out in minutes. Somewhere on Youtube there's a clip.
|
|
"Open cast coal is a 5th of the price landed." Def true in the 70s when I was at the NCB - it could be shipped from Australia cheaper than we could dig it out. Not helped, of course, by restrictive practices and an unwillingness on the union's part to find more economic ways of doing it.
|
...1992 Leeds gathering...
Sheffield, wasn't it? Dreadful moment anyway - I remember thinking "Don't blow it now!"
|
|
Yes you're right, it was Sheffield.
|
>> ...1992 Leeds gathering...
>>
>> Sheffield, wasn't it? Dreadful moment anyway - I remember thinking "Don't blow it now!"
Glad somebody else said that - I was just about to check it out. Unfortuantely I was busy refuting other myths - it's hectic defending the labour cause on here :-)
|
it's hectic defending the labour cause on here
>> :-)
>>
The Labour cause of the 1970's was beyond defending. They were a spent force dreaming of socialist ideologies which had long proved unworkable, brought the country to it's knees and were in the process of bankrupting the Soviet Union. They had neither the will nor the means to take on the unions (I was a union member myself from leaving school till self employment in the mid eighties) and instil the policies that were badly needed to halt a disasterous decline.
|
|
Well I knew it was somewhere north of Watford...
|
>> Perhaps if the miners hadn't gone on strike and held the country to ransom so
>> many times they may have still have jobs, I for one have no sympathy for
>> them, they deserved what they got
'Held the country to ransom' is the favourite buzzphrase to this day for opponents any form of industrial action. It's a dispute between workers and employers. The rest of us get caught up.
There good game of BS bingo to be played around employer/press commentary on labour relations.
The miners by the way were far from prolific strikers; 72, 73/3 and 84/5 were I think the only all out stoppages since the war and probably after 1926.
|
>..that FPTP combined with Galtieri and others gifted her majorities out of all proportion to her popular support.
You do like to find any excuse to denigrate her achievements don't you Bromp.
You can't accept that she was popular because she had the balls to confront serious problems head-on.
Instead of wondering how difficult it must have been to take the decision to send British troops 8,000 miles to kick Galtieri off our front lawn you turn it into a cheap comment that it "gifted" her more support than she deserved.
|
Baroness Thatcher - Volume 4 - VxFan