Are you another that thinks we should have paid miners to do nothing, as the unions demanded?
To quote rik.....
[b]I've told you a million times, do not exaggerate![/b]
[img] 
[/img]
😀
I am a lefty and therefore no supporter of New Labour. With Blair in particular leading us into the Iraq war on a lie I believe the man should be in jail. although she showed some courage in the Brighton bombing Thatcher was only one among many people, emergency services, hotel staff etc. Her governments record throughout its term was consistent, imo they were nothing more than asset strippers. The effect of all the anti union legislation was to make it virtually impossible for workers to protect themselves against changes to contracts and conditions of employment. There's a long list of examples of a government and a prime minister with a complete disregard for those they regarded as opposition or whose votes they didn't need. Miners strike, dock workers, Hillsborough, poll tax, Gartcosh, etc. Isn't it strange how Thatcher supported a trade union in communist Poland.? I strongly object to paying for her funeral.
Binners - mad how he could go from Rik to
[img] 
[/img]
binners - MemberI've told you a million times, do not exaggerate!
I was trying to be concise, what I should have said was that Scargill would rather have had miners do meaningless work of zero value, than accept redundancy.
Does that jog your memory?
Or are you another who sees Scargill as a hero? 😆
On the QT point. I think Charles Moore must definitely have been living in a different country to me during the 80's, as I didn't recognise a single element of the drivel he was spouting, at allIn the same way that Polly Toynbee was certainly living in some sort of alternative dimension to me during the Nu Labour years. As the Socialist Utopia she describes sounded absolutely brilliant!!! Wish I'd have been there instead
So which of them did you think was worse? I couldn't quite decide.
Watching This Week afterwards, I thought Shirley Williams' comments were interesting - she seemed to be strongly of the opinion that Thatcher was a significant figure and worthy of a state funeral because she was the first woman prime-minister (and for those wondering, when asked if it could have been her, she said she was too disorganised).
I'd love to be as uncomplicated as you, and see life through such a simplistic prism. It must be so much easier when everythings so clear cut and black and white. Like Richard Littlejohn, there's not much room for nuance in your world is there?
So, to summarise, is this right....
Not liking Thatcher = huge Nu Labour groupee? Hero worshiper of Arthur Scargill? Possibly a communist?
That pretty much cover it?
So which of them did you think was worse? I couldn't quite decide.
They balanced each other out; Menzies came across the best - middle ground opinions likely to make most sense I suppose
Hero worshiper of Arthur Scargill? Possibly a communist?
I'd suggest probably a fool myself, given the harm he did to the cause of the miners and the union movement (it is good to see him showing his true colours nowadays).
Menzies came across the best.
I was somewhat surprised how fawning he was - had to double check who he was, as I was thinking they already had Ken Clarke on as the Tory.
I don't think either Thatcher or Scargill gave a shit about the very real lives they were wrecking as they stubbornly banged their heads together
Both viewing people as mere collateral damage to be sacrificed at the alter of their monstrous ego's
I was involved with a miners' support group during the strike. In coversation with the miners I was told in no uncertain manner that they backed the NUM 100%. I don't think they'd have allowed Scargill to agree to any settlement that Thatcher would find acceptable.
This is brilliant, sums her up:
[img] 
[/img]
It's probably helpful (though I'm sure unwelcome since it doesn't fit the prevailing narrative of current times) that Thatcher's view of Hillsborough was based on official police reports that have only recently surfaced and have been since shown to be untrue.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17238494
Given that that she wasn't there, and the "view" and reports came from a number of people who were directly involved including the then Chief Constable of Merseyside, is it fair to make her 100% culpable for forming an opinion based on the above when the reports came from public servants who include a cohort that appear to have deliberately sought to mislead everyone on the role the police played?
She may have been misinforemed over Hillsborough, but she leapt onto the hatred of football fans bandwagon with delight.
Wsaswas - That's absolutely superb!!! I absolutely love Posy Simmonds stuff too. Should be good!
[img] 
[/img]
Given that that she wasn't there, and the "view" and reports came from a number of people who were directly involved including the then Chief Constable of Merseyside, Sir Kenneth Oxford, is it fair to make her 100% culpable for forming an opinion based on the above when the reports came from public servants who appear to have deliberately sought to mislead everyone on the role the police played?
It's pretty much the same as the sexed up WMD report for Iraq. The civil servants created the reports required by their political masters.
Hora - that'd be the twenty-something student shackled with massive debts, who can't get a job because the economy was crashed by bank speculators?
All Thatcherite policies.
Hora - that'd be the twenty-something student shackled with massive debts, who can't get a job because the economy was crashed by bank speculators?All Thatcherite policies.
[b]So lets pretend Labour wasn't in power for a decade then up until the crash. [/b]
Thatcher started it - Blair was as much a child of Thatcher as Cameron.
So its not the Labour party at fault- just a rogue entity? He slipped in through the net didn't he. A plant, Brown et al were all there to sabotage the workers dreams?
Did a bloody good job of it.
Oh, it is most certainly the Labour party at fault. We went from having a party on the right and a party on the left to having a party on the right and a party on the slightly further right.
Her mystical powers know no end Ben!?!
Yes, Hora... Very clever. You're right though. Her influence evaporated the day she left Downing street, and was confined exclusively to coal mining.
Anyone who didn't live through it, is not entitled to an opinion? Particularly as her continued legacy has lead to massive youth unemployment (a price worth paying, remember), the removal of housing benefit, and 9 grand a year tution fees, amongst many other things
So... I'd say that any 20 year old looking into her Legacy and expressing an opinion is a good thing, no? Considering the position they presently find themselves in. Or would you rather we had a generation of the apathetic, so the politicians can get away with murder, and somehow someone finally manages to be more politically clueless then even you
[img] 
[/img]
Oh, it is most certainly the Labour party at fault. We went from having a party on the right and a party on the left to having a party on the right and a party on the slightly further right.
How was Labour's collective failure anything to do with an old lady who had been forced out by her own party?
Binners, reel him in. Hes more of a fantasist than you.
The Margaret jar is very clever.
How was Labour's collective failure anything to do with an old lady who had been forced out by her own party?
There wouldn't be New Labour without Thatcher. She started the deregulation of the financial system, she started the selloff of public assets, she introduced the idea that there was no such thing as society - everyone is in it for themselves.
I don't see anything wrong with the tuition fees, it's like an extra test to see if you are clever enough to go to university.
Borrow some money to further educate yourself, then when you are earning plenty, thanks to your education, you pay it back.
If you don't earn enough, you don't pay it back.
I suppose another way of doing it is to rely on those you've given the means to make a lot of money to pay back into society off their own backs.
Unfortunately, this is what Thatcher tried and it didn't work. People are greedy and selfish.
bencooper she was ousted, thrown out by her own party. They didn't want her. That was over two decades ago.
She's not the boogyman you know.
bencooper - Membershe introduced the idea that there was no such thing as society - everyone is in it for themselves.
You've misunderstood that quote.
She didn't want people to be selfish, she wanted people to take responsibility for themselves.
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' 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. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
bencooper she was ousted, thrown out by her own party. They didn't want her.
Not strictly true. They still adored her, as emotionally retarded, sexually repressed public schoolboys, with a matron fixation, that they always were/are
But they were bright enough to know that she was now so despised by the electorate that if she lead them into the next election, they would lose it for sure
Labour were in the same boat before the last election with Brown. But the labour party doesn't possess the electorally ruthless streak of the Tories. Actually... they're still in the same boat now with Wallace. But again, they'll do nowt. Too spineless
I do love whataboutery, it's a good sign of when someone has completely run out of argument.
Using it to argue every point is a sign of something else entirely though.
Labour were in the same boat before the last election with Brown. But the labour party doesn't possess the electorally ruthless streak of the Tories.
Was Brown as much of an electoral liability as Thatcher was, (well, actually her utterly blind insistence on pursuing the Poll Tax) at the time she was ousted?
Labour lost the 2010 election by how many seats? I heard on R4 the other day that alongside the cabinet that did the ousting, there were in the region of [b]150[/b] Tory Mp's in marginal seats saying the poll tax (and therefore Thatcher) was going to lose them their seats and the Conservative party the General Election.
Labour were in the same boat before the last election with Brown
Do you think if Tony had still been in charge they'd have done better, or had people started to hate him enough by then? I still can't help thinking that he had some inkling of what was coming and got out whilst the going was good. Clearly I've also forgotten already who else it was lined up to take his place who was going to do better - it's not as if they were all clamoring to have that task (and in the long term surely everybody knew it would be a good election to lose - well everybody except Nick anyway).
Actually... they're still in the same boat now with Wallace.
Do you really think he's poor enough to lose them it given how unpopular the Tories are making themselves? I'm really baffled by some of the things they're doing - as pointed out, a lot of them are totally unnecessary and also extremely unpopular - it's almost like they don't think one poll tax is enough this time round.
9 grand a year tution fees
Yeah well that might have quite a lot to do with Blair's desire to dramatically increase the numbers in HE thus both increasing the cost and devaluing the value of HE - plus there aren't any more graduates needed anyway so many end up unemployed...funny that.
I'd agree with all of that aracer. Blair milked it and then picked the perfect moment to leave. ie: when it all came home to roost. And it was certainly a good election to lose. As will this one, as the tories present suicidal economic policies will be coming home to roost by then too.
I think the Tories knew they were a one term government right from the off, and are setting about doing as much irreversible ideologically-driven damage as possible before the inevitable loss. Then when the Lib/Lab coalition take over they're going to be faced with choices that are going to make this present term look like a picnic
Do you really think he's poor enough to lose them it given how unpopular the Tories are making themselves?
Yes.
-media/personality: remember how popular Clegg was made by the a couple of good telly appearances and lots of positive press. The same can be done with Cameron I am sure.
-you can fool lots of people with a manifesto that only bears a passing resemblance with what you really want to do.
-relatively low numbers of "swingable" voters.
-relatively low numbers of swing seats.
*affects poorly-informed pub bore voice*
The wild card is UKIP either splitting the conservative vote enough to lose them lots of marginals, or fighting the election on the Euro referendum and somehow that backfiring. Otherwise Cameron will have to actually bite the head off a child on Newsnight no to win next time.
[EDIT] actually what Binners said make sense too. But is anyone (well, anyone not 'protest voting' against the labour or conservative incumbent in a safe seat as I suppose I might consider doing. Again.) actually going to vote lib dem now?
There is no doubt that the financial services industry grew rapidly from the 1980s up until the 2008 crisis. But this concept of 'liberal' deregulation - as in some kind of free-for-all - seems quite at odds with my memories of the time.
So during Thatcher:
1. A previously privately regulated (sic) old boys club (stockbroking) was ended with regulation transferring from the players themselves to the state
2. (From above) insider dealing was made illegal (1980) - and anyone who worked in the industry knows how widespread it was
3. The level of bank capital came under new state regulation (Basle 1)
4. New qualifications were required for industry participants - irritating exams!
5. Deposit insurance was introduced to protect depositors
6. Life insurance was re-regulated
7. Selling financial products (savings, insurance) regulated
Not exactly a wild free-for-all.
is anyone (well, anyone not 'protest voting' against the labour or conservative incumbent in a safe seat as I suppose I might consider doing. Again.) actually going to vote lib dem now?
Strangely enough I would, but then I didn't have the same expectations as many of the traditional LibDem supporters seemingly did, and I'm capable of seeing beyond the fact they lied, because they all do that. They were never going to be able to do all the stuff those who feel betrayed think they should have. That's always of course assuming they manage to field a candidate who isn't quite so awful as the one we had here last time (unlike the Conservative candidate he didn't bother moving to the area, and pretty much all of his campaigning seemed to be negative stuff).
mudshark - MemberYeah well that might have quite a lot to do with Blair's desire to dramatically increase the numbers in HE thus both increasing the cost and devaluing the value of HE - plus there aren't any more graduates needed anyway so many end up unemployed...funny that.
But, but, but, it's their 'ooman right to go to university!
@binners - have they uncovered your real identity?
[url= http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/labour-official-apologises-jibe-margaret-2586869 ]http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/labour-official-apologises-jibe-margaret-2586869[/url]
😀 😀
The NUM was 'attacked' by the Thatcher Regime, they responded in the only way they could--withdraw their labour-- Scargill was their elected leader, with a huge mandate from the membership--more than any politician, he made have made some tactical mistakes--i e not calling on the TUC for support--he knew most of the lilly livered toads wouldn't have--but at least they would have been under pressure from their members--some workers took unilateral action--rail workers, dockers,and others where they could. I remember NACODs used the strike to enhance their pay etc , as did those scabs in the EEPTU-but to attempt to portray the Arthur Scargill as some sort of equivalent to Thatcher shows how bankrupt your thinking and ideology must be.
There is room for a huge debate on all the sell outs by the so called Labour party-- and yes for me Thatcher started the asset stripping, and the baton has been handed down to every govt since, some run a bit quicker than others, like the present lot of fools-- i suppose it says more about a political system than anything else, where with the approval of less than a fifth of the adult population you can wreak havoc on every one else and call it 'democracy'.....
CURSES!!! BUSTED! 😀
Asset stripping?
In the years leading upto Thatchers government many [b]LOSS making[/b] companies were nationalised.
In modern times its companies making massive [b]LOSSES[/b] like Northern pissing Rock that were nationalised (thanks again Labour), Bradford & Bingley (their loss making side) thanks again Labour. Then there was RBS. Oh cheers Labour! You are spoiling the taxpayer!
Scargill couldn't gather enough votes to go on strike so he changed the rules (lowering the amount).
Did you read history?
A quick look at the profits and dividends generated by the utility companies in the UK today leads me to believe that if the government had retained a major stake in them then not only would income be generated for the taxpayer but the government would have far greater say in when it comes to price hikes,director pay and bonuses,infrastructure investment and the like.
As I asked days ago where did all the money from privitisation and oil revenue go under Thatcher?
