Exciting but somehow sad - saw Baroness Thatcher today
Discussion
Andy Zarse said:
IforB said:
Quite. I was always taught that when having a discussion you have a go at the argument and not the person. Go for the ball and not the player if you like.
Unless we're talking about Scotland! 
ClaphamGT3 said:
IforB said:
Blue Meanie said:
IforB said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
BOR said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
john_p said:
I find it astounding that 20 years on even the sheer mention of her name still brings up bile in people's throats
This is the ultimate testament to how radical what she did was; sure there will always be the nay-sayers, the serial malcontents & the vocal socialist minority splashing around in their own tank of bitter p*ss but the hard reality is that she brought prosperity hitherto unimaginable to the overwhelming majority of ordinary people in this country, social cohesion and mobility the like of which we haad never seen before and the largest move ever made since the introduction of universal sufferage towards a truly meritocratic society.How, specifically, did she achieve each of those things in your staggeringly rose-tinted post ?
Recent posts tell me that you don't really see that much of a problem with terrorist violence, so long as you happen not to like the part of society the victim comes from; economic reality isnt much of a priority for you; outdated socialist doctrine is however rather agreeable to you. Have you considered re-locating to Zimbabwe?
The world isn't made up of the rabid left and right. Though on PH it seems that if you aren't to the right of Hitler, then you're immediately some sort of socialist lunatic.
Grow up.
It's a shame that this part of PH often seems to be so poorly educated when it comes to debating skills.
I don't know; maybe the art & form of formal debating has moved on in the last 18 years.......
.
IforB said:
Andy Zarse said:
IforB said:
Quite. I was always taught that when having a discussion you have a go at the argument and not the person. Go for the ball and not the player if you like.
Unless we're talking about Scotland! 
The Scottish nation's collective hatred of Thatcher is only equalled by their inability to articulate it in a comprehensible fashion. Just the mention of the name sends them puce with anger and makes the ginger whiskers stick out on the backs of their necks. Then they emit a noise akin to a capercailly attacking a wild haggis in the glen.
(Of course I'm not talking about Morningside here!).
ClaphamGT3 said:
john_p said:
I find it astounding that 20 years on even the sheer mention of her name still brings up bile in people's throats
This is the ultimate testament to how radical what she did was; sure there will always be the nay-sayers, the serial malcontents & the vocal socialist minority splashing around in their own tank of bitter p*ss but the hard reality is that she brought prosperity hitherto unimaginable to the overwhelming majority of ordinary people in this country, social cohesion and mobility the like of which we haad never seen before and the largest move ever made since the introduction of universal sufferage towards a truly meritocratic society.
t I usually flush it down the toilet, not post it on Pistonheads like you seem to do.Your glorified idol may have brought prosperity to parts of the South East and those lucky enough to be in a position to capitalise on her reforms, but for great swathes of the country she just pulled the rug from under their feet and left them in the gutter.
Rather than gradually shut down the unions and make an easy to handle transition from manual labour (which was always going to go abroad - I agree with it being simple economics), she decided to bring in the changes overnight pretty much and left thousands with nothing, millions with nothing when you consider the reverse effect of the oh so celebrated 'trickle down effect' (i.e. people stopped spending in local businesses so whole regional economies got shafted).
She brought in reforms that were needed, I agree, but she brought them in in an utterly inconsiderate and ill thought out way. There was nothing for these people after their jobs had gone. There was no transition or settling in period where people could adjust and make changes for a new way of life. No, she just pulled the plug and instantly ruined the livelihoods of millions and all the while she didn't even care. Her grand master plan didn't have time for the needs of those it affected, it was just concerned with the final result, whatever the cost.
It was akin to rescuing a trapped climber by just throwing him off the side of the mountain and telling him "well, it needed to be done" when he's lying on the valley bottom with 2 broken legs and a crushed skull.
She is hated for good reason. You say that people will say 'good riddance' when Winky dies, but hell, lots more people will be doing lots more than that when old Thatcher dies. I would be surprised if their weren't celebratory marches up and down the country.
Edited by Shay HTFC on Friday 8th October 14:46
Pupp said:
Zod said:
Not a single Thatcher-hater has ever been able to give me an answer as to how the country would have fared better in the 1980s if Labour had won the 1979 election.
It might still have significant steel making capacity?Many industries could well have moved in in a smaller capacity, but the union strikes, and industrial actions for so long essentially brought them down to their knees. It was the political agenda of the Scargills of the world that brought about the demise, rather than the government removing the subsidies.
I have to be honest and say that I am a bit of a ‘Maggie fan’. I do not come from a ‘rich’ family, but what one would perhaps best describe as comfortably middle class.
Maggie brought strong leadership to a country that had undergone an almost unabated and traumatic reversal of fortune and decline since 1914. We were a Country which had little left of its standing in the international community other than a history of once being a World leader and power. Having endured the long slog of recovery from the two World Wars (we were not recovered socially and economically from WW I when WWII started) we found ourselves in the mid 1970’s well behind where we should have been. In my opinion, a considerable part of the blame for this must be borne by a workforce which had undergone a dramatic change in its social and political standing in the last 25-30 years and was being lead by people whose self interest in gaining power in their own sphere was as, if not more, important to them than safeguarding the futures of their charges and the companies which employed them.
In PH terms they wanted a car that would do 0-62 in 6 seconds when the best I could achieve without blowing itself to pieces was a 6.4. Thing is that instead of satisfying themselves which what they could achieve at the time and chipping away until their ultimate goal was achievable they forced everyone into a situation where something had to give. Hence the continual rounds to walkouts, strikes and other disruptions. Adding fuel to out internal economic fire was the external cancer of Communism whipping up discontent and trying to find a way to achieve the Marxist/Leninist ideal of a workers revolution in the UK.
Maggie brought in strong and sure leadership. Sure she wasn’t always right, and she did make a hash of some things, but she got the job done. She brought us back to where we ‘should’ be on the World stage politically and economically together with a fantastic Chancellor.
Whilst I do recall that had it not been for the Falklands War she might have been out of a job in 1983 it was precisely that incident that defined most of her premiership. No BS, job to be done, get out there and do it. She made tough calls that weaker people would not have made and stood by them. The sinking of the Belgrano was one such incident. I think she knew full well that technically the ship was off limits, but that the reality was not to fire upon it could easily lead to the deaths of many, many, more of our troops. The message it sent was not only will this woman make the hard calls that need to be made, but also if the end justifies the means she isn’t afraid to play a little rough – something anyone who doesn’t wish to be taken advantage of has to make clear. I’ll play fair but piss about and the gloves are off.
Ultimately I feel that Maggie suffered from the same fate as many greats – They become great, they are great, they start to believe they can do no wrong. It was at the latter juncture that her party turned on her in such a disgraceful way, as the electorate did Churchill in 1945. In both cases though perhaps the incumbent was not the best person for the job, yet what we got in return was perhaps not much better, although by a different route.
Maggie brought strong leadership to a country that had undergone an almost unabated and traumatic reversal of fortune and decline since 1914. We were a Country which had little left of its standing in the international community other than a history of once being a World leader and power. Having endured the long slog of recovery from the two World Wars (we were not recovered socially and economically from WW I when WWII started) we found ourselves in the mid 1970’s well behind where we should have been. In my opinion, a considerable part of the blame for this must be borne by a workforce which had undergone a dramatic change in its social and political standing in the last 25-30 years and was being lead by people whose self interest in gaining power in their own sphere was as, if not more, important to them than safeguarding the futures of their charges and the companies which employed them.
In PH terms they wanted a car that would do 0-62 in 6 seconds when the best I could achieve without blowing itself to pieces was a 6.4. Thing is that instead of satisfying themselves which what they could achieve at the time and chipping away until their ultimate goal was achievable they forced everyone into a situation where something had to give. Hence the continual rounds to walkouts, strikes and other disruptions. Adding fuel to out internal economic fire was the external cancer of Communism whipping up discontent and trying to find a way to achieve the Marxist/Leninist ideal of a workers revolution in the UK.
Maggie brought in strong and sure leadership. Sure she wasn’t always right, and she did make a hash of some things, but she got the job done. She brought us back to where we ‘should’ be on the World stage politically and economically together with a fantastic Chancellor.
Whilst I do recall that had it not been for the Falklands War she might have been out of a job in 1983 it was precisely that incident that defined most of her premiership. No BS, job to be done, get out there and do it. She made tough calls that weaker people would not have made and stood by them. The sinking of the Belgrano was one such incident. I think she knew full well that technically the ship was off limits, but that the reality was not to fire upon it could easily lead to the deaths of many, many, more of our troops. The message it sent was not only will this woman make the hard calls that need to be made, but also if the end justifies the means she isn’t afraid to play a little rough – something anyone who doesn’t wish to be taken advantage of has to make clear. I’ll play fair but piss about and the gloves are off.
Ultimately I feel that Maggie suffered from the same fate as many greats – They become great, they are great, they start to believe they can do no wrong. It was at the latter juncture that her party turned on her in such a disgraceful way, as the electorate did Churchill in 1945. In both cases though perhaps the incumbent was not the best person for the job, yet what we got in return was perhaps not much better, although by a different route.
Shay HTFC said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
john_p said:
I find it astounding that 20 years on even the sheer mention of her name still brings up bile in people's throats
This is the ultimate testament to how radical what she did was; sure there will always be the nay-sayers, the serial malcontents & the vocal socialist minority splashing around in their own tank of bitter p*ss but the hard reality is that she brought prosperity hitherto unimaginable to the overwhelming majority of ordinary people in this country, social cohesion and mobility the like of which we haad never seen before and the largest move ever made since the introduction of universal sufferage towards a truly meritocratic society.t I usually flush it down the toilet, not post it on Pistonheads like you seem to do.Your glorified idol may have brought prosperity to parts of the South East and those lucky enough to be in a position to capitalise on her reforms, but for great swathes of the country she just pulled the rug from under their feet and left them for s
t.Rather than gradually shut down the unions and make a easy to handle transition from manual labour (which was always going to go abroad - I agree with it being simple economics), she just f
ked it all up overnight pretty much and left thousands with nothing, millions when you consider the reverse effect of the oh so celebrated 'trickle down effect' (i.e. people stopped spending in local businesses so whole regional economies got shafted).I agree, she brought in reforms that were needed, but she brought them in in an utterly inconsiderate and ill thought out way. There was nothing for these people after their jobs had gone. There was no transition or settling in period where people could adjust and make changes for a new way of life. No, she just pulled the plug and instantly ruined the livelihoods of millions and all the while she didn't even care. Her grand master plan didn't have time for the needs of those it affected, it was just concerned with the final result, whatever the cost.
It was akin to rescuing a trapped climber by just throwing him off the side of the mountain and telling him "well, it needed to be done" when he's lying on the valley bottom with 2 broken legs and a crushed skull.
She is hated for good reason. You say that people will say 'good riddance' when Winky dies, but hell, lots more people will be doing lots more than that when old Thatcher dies. I would be surprised if their weren't celebratory marches up and down the country.
Derek Hatton - though I agree with some of what you have written and like the line about flushing down the toilet very much
Blue Meanie said:
Many industries could well have moved in in a smaller capacity, but the union strikes, and industrial actions for so long essentially brought them down to their knees. It was the political agenda of the Scargills of the world that brought about the demise, rather than the government removing the subsidies.
To be fair both have to shoulder some of the blame. The problem was that the intransigence of one brought on the belligerence of the other. Which was which depends upon each person’s political leaning 
Rude-boy said:
Blue Meanie said:
Many industries could well have moved in in a smaller capacity, but the union strikes, and industrial actions for so long essentially brought them down to their knees. It was the political agenda of the Scargills of the world that brought about the demise, rather than the government removing the subsidies.
To be fair both have to shoulder some of the blame. The problem was that the intransigence of one brought on the belligerence of the other. Which was which depends upon each person’s political leaning Zod said:
Pupp said:
Zod said:
Not a single Thatcher-hater has ever been able to give me an answer as to how the country would have fared better in the 1980s if Labour had won the 1979 election.
It might still have significant steel making capacity?So where would the money have come from to continue the subsidies meantime?
The Unions would have fought even gradual closures.
What would we have used all this steel for given that private manufacturing was totally on it's knees?
Rude-boy said:
The message it sent was not only will this woman make the hard calls that need to be made, but also if the end justifies the means she isn’t afraid to play a little rough – something anyone who doesn’t wish to be taken advantage of has to make clear. I’ll play fair but piss about and the gloves are off.
When 'the means' that the end justified involves annoying the Argentinians, then maybe the British people can forgive her, but when 'the means' include throwing large parts of the country into the 'no jobs, no money, no local economy' poverty spiral, then she rightly deserves to be despised.Sometimes getting to 'the end' asap doesn't justify the means.
Blue Meanie said:
Ah... Remember the Poll tax... The rather obvious method of taxing, rather than per house... For some reason it was seen as unfair, and riots commenced. How very daft!
It wasn't seen as unfair - it was seen as unworkable in the real world as people tend to move about whereas houses don't.Andy Zarse said:
Zod said:
Pupp said:
Zod said:
Not a single Thatcher-hater has ever been able to give me an answer as to how the country would have fared better in the 1980s if Labour had won the 1979 election.
It might still have significant steel making capacity?So where would the money have come from to continue the subsidies meantime?
The Unions would have fought even gradual closures.
What would we have used all this steel for given that private manufacturing was totally on it's knees?
Blue Meanie said:
...the blame being laid solely at the feet of Maggie is absurd to say the least...
My view to 
she was no saint, but far from the sinner some would have us believe.FWIW my family hails from North of the Watford gap, although not as far up as yours. One thing has always been clear though, from WWII until 1997 any business interests they have had have thrived under one party, yet been beggered by the other
Shay HTFC said:
When 'the means' that the end justified involves annoying the Argentinians, then maybe the British people can forgive her, but when 'the means' include throwing large parts of the country into the 'no jobs, no money, no local economy' poverty spiral, then she rightly deserves to be despised.
Sometimes getting to 'the end' asap doesn't justify the means.
New Labour continued the economic policies of Thatcher - if they were so bad why wasn't privatisation etc. reversed?Sometimes getting to 'the end' asap doesn't justify the means.
MikeyT said:
Blue Meanie said:
Ah... Remember the Poll tax... The rather obvious method of taxing, rather than per house... For some reason it was seen as unfair, and riots commenced. How very daft!
It wasn't seen as unfair - it was seen as unworkable in the real world as people tend to move about whereas houses don't.fido said:
Shay HTFC said:
When 'the means' that the end justified involves annoying the Argentinians, then maybe the British people can forgive her, but when 'the means' include throwing large parts of the country into the 'no jobs, no money, no local economy' poverty spiral, then she rightly deserves to be despised.
Sometimes getting to 'the end' asap doesn't justify the means.
New Labour continued the economic policies of Thatcher - if they were so bad why wasn't privatisation etc. reversed?Sometimes getting to 'the end' asap doesn't justify the means.
What was not good though, was the way in which they were brought in. You don't just cut off the only source of income for half the country without considering that it may, just incidentally, cause widespread and lasting poverty to parts of the country that could only stare in shock like rabbits in the headlights.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff