Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]


BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!

Related threads:
Lyr Req: Dedicated Follower of Thatcher (21)
BS: What qualities in Thatcher do you admire (130)
BS: Iron lady (100)
BS: Where now Thatcher haters? (453)
BS: Thatcher expenses (72)
BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts? (113)
BS: Margaret Thatcher's Birthday-13 Oct 1925 (149)
BS: Meryl Streep as Thatcher (37)
Mrs Thatcher's March by Vladimir O'Leary (1)
BS:Thatcher's Legacy (31)
carol thatcher death threats (281)
BS: Margaret Thatcher meets mudcatter (90)
BS: Mrs Thatcher had dementia (89) (closed)
BS: The last days of Thatcher (166)
BS: Thatcher is finally finished! (32)
BS: Who Should Play Thatcher ?. (51)
BS: Was Thatcher right? (125)
BS: Happy Birthday Mrs Thatcher-13 Oct 1925 (165)
Obit: thatcher (not) dead (55)
BS: Mrs Thatcher, the glory years. (27)
BS: Margaret Thatcher (43) (closed)
BS: Thatchers Revenge (7) (closed)
BS: Maggie Thatcher Day (122) (closed)
BS: Thatcher Statue Beheaded (42) (closed)
BS: Thatcher speaks no more (116) (closed)
BS: Statecraft - More critique of Thatcher (2) (closed)
BS: Thatcher's statue (64) (closed)
BS: Margaret Thatcher-any comments? (168) (closed)


GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) 28 Nov 11 - 04:17 AM
Big Al Whittle 28 Nov 11 - 04:46 AM
MGM·Lion 28 Nov 11 - 06:36 AM
Big Al Whittle 28 Nov 11 - 07:47 AM
McGrath of Harlow 28 Nov 11 - 08:59 AM
MGM·Lion 28 Nov 11 - 09:54 AM
Little Hawk 28 Nov 11 - 10:43 AM
GUEST,Teribus 28 Nov 11 - 11:08 AM
Big Al Whittle 28 Nov 11 - 11:24 AM
GUEST,Teribus 28 Nov 11 - 11:53 AM
Big Al Whittle 28 Nov 11 - 01:35 PM
GUEST,Teribus 28 Nov 11 - 05:06 PM
Little Hawk 28 Nov 11 - 05:53 PM
Big Al Whittle 28 Nov 11 - 09:01 PM
GUEST,Teribus 29 Nov 11 - 01:05 AM
GUEST 29 Nov 11 - 02:28 AM
Little Hawk 29 Nov 11 - 02:42 AM
Jack the Sailor 29 Nov 11 - 02:47 AM
McGrath of Harlow 29 Nov 11 - 09:49 AM
Musket 29 Nov 11 - 11:23 AM
GUEST,Teribus 29 Nov 11 - 11:28 AM
Little Hawk 29 Nov 11 - 11:39 AM
Little Hawk 29 Nov 11 - 11:54 AM
McGrath of Harlow 29 Nov 11 - 01:32 PM
MGM·Lion 29 Nov 11 - 02:23 PM
MGM·Lion 29 Nov 11 - 02:28 PM
Little Hawk 29 Nov 11 - 04:51 PM
Musket 30 Nov 11 - 03:57 AM
Little Hawk 30 Nov 11 - 11:12 AM
McGrath of Harlow 30 Nov 11 - 05:16 PM
Little Hawk 30 Nov 11 - 05:22 PM
MGM·Lion 30 Nov 11 - 05:43 PM
Little Hawk 30 Nov 11 - 11:45 PM
MGM·Lion 01 Dec 11 - 12:16 AM
Little Hawk 01 Dec 11 - 11:20 AM
MGM·Lion 01 Dec 11 - 12:29 PM
Little Hawk 01 Dec 11 - 01:05 PM
McGrath of Harlow 01 Dec 11 - 01:55 PM
Little Hawk 01 Dec 11 - 02:24 PM
McGrath of Harlow 01 Dec 11 - 04:33 PM
MGM·Lion 02 Dec 11 - 05:32 AM
Little Hawk 02 Dec 11 - 09:12 AM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 02 Dec 11 - 10:09 AM
McGrath of Harlow 02 Dec 11 - 05:34 PM
Little Hawk 02 Dec 11 - 06:15 PM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 02 Dec 11 - 08:21 PM
Jack the Sailor 02 Dec 11 - 09:24 PM
Joe Offer 11 Dec 11 - 12:44 AM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 11 Dec 11 - 12:53 AM
GUEST,punkfokrocker 11 Dec 11 - 12:55 AM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum Child
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 04:17 AM

Apparently the film is going to have a 12A certificate - which means it's unsuitable for children and miners.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 04:46 AM

MGM - if you lived in a tory constiuency - or most of the south - you can have simply no idea of Thatcher and how she is viewed.

I can think of only the bubonic plague, or maybe the Duke of Cumberland post Culloden, who excites a similar reaction in people normally quite measured in their reactions. Maybe Cromwell in ireland.

Try to get a hold of this. there were these communities of hard working, not terribly well educated people No money had been spent on educating them, and in truth by the time they were fourteen the boys knew they were going down the pits, the girls knew that the lucky ones were going to marry miners. Lots of ther industries and businesses depended on these pits.

Thatcher comes along. No real plan for redevelopment. She doesn't say she is going to close all the pits down (she wouldn't have got elected if she had stated her intention) - although this is clearly the intention.

She closes the pits for whatever reason.

In double quick time, communities and families break up People see their kids (who would have had mortgages and families) begging on the streets, preyed upon the hard drug selling criminals. Cheap booze and the television with a Chinese torture of drip drip dripping images of affluence into the living room do the rest. watch the jeremy Kyle show for the amusing results.

In a way, i'm glad for you that you don't get it. But these are the communities that you sing about in your trad folk songs Trimdon Grange, byker Hill, etc. Show them some respect.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 06:36 AM

Al ~~ Do not mistake my point. Please believe:- I have no disrespect for the communities you mention. I am not attempting even to defend MT's policies; I was/am not a particular supporter of her at the time or retrospectively. But you do not address my point that her election record demonstrates that she was fulfilling the common & popular will, and not only of the S & the Home Counties; and not once but again & again: if you claim to be an upholder of democracy, then you really must not continually evade this point in this fashion. It was the miners' misfortune, it seemed/seems to me, to have a prickly, undiplomatic, aggressive leader who thoroughly alienated the populace at large from the justice of the cause he was supposed to be upholding ~ & largely at that by adopting an ad hominem [ad feminem?] approach to the leader they had elected of their own free untrammelled democratic will. Surely it is not her memory that should incur all this continuing obloquy, but Scargill's?

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 07:47 AM

I suppose there was Richmond in Yorkshire and York itself - but I can't think of anywhere else that she actually dared to go announced - outside of the home counties.

I remember one weekend i was down in Looe and thanks to her accomodation of our Euro partners - every fishing boat in the harbour was in the hands of the bank manager. cornwall is Lib Dem country of course. She took care of the constituencies that took care of her.

Scargill is perceived as dim and uncomprehending. Thatcher as clever and evil.

I think that's probably right. Scargill - Prince Rupert, or the Earl of Stafford and Thatcher - The Witchfinder General. I think that's how histories of the period will work out.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 08:59 AM

I remember the day they chucked her out - going round with a happy sesnsation, and every now and then remembering why it was there. And hearing the hoots of joy, and the cars honking, and everyone you met had a smile on their face. And this was down in the South of England.

Of course the downside is that a grateful nation rewarded the Tories for doing the dirty deed by re-electing them, and by the time Labour was elected it was run by a spruced up Thatcher clone...

But I feel there is something misplaced about the "I hate Thatcher" thing - the real blame lies with the minority of voters (and remember it always was a minority) who voted her back into power twice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 09:54 AM

It is always a minority, McG ~~ since 1945, there has not been a single govt supported by an actual numerical majority of the electorate: a factor of our first-past-post constituency-based system; but PR has never been a popular alternative. So I don't think you can make much political capital of that.

I still feel the obloquy in which she is held to be unjust. Scargill was more malign than foolish, imo; and the idiot hyperbolical denunciations we keep hearing ["most evil woman of C20", some fool wrote on a thread not long since, genuinely appearing to feel she outranked Irma Grese of Elena Ceausecu or Myra Hindley in evil! - what a fatuous formulation] rub me up intolerably. She has become a mere scapegoat for the idiocy of the leftie opposition: a boo-figure bogey-woman for the unthinking or won't-think mob mentality.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 10:43 AM

It sounds like a situation similar to ours in Canada. Governments don't get elected by a majority here either, because there are a multipicity of parties, and no one of them can secure a true majority of the voting but they CAN secure a majority of the seats.

And there is only ONE that gets the vote of the "conservative" sector of the population (which is in the minority here)....so THEY've been winning the elections, despite the fact that about 60% of the public doesn't WANT them!

That's not democracy. What it is, I'm not sure, but it's definitely not democracy.

If the center-left in this country were to combine into a single party, the right would have little or no hope of forming a government. Unfortunately, the center-left is divided into 3 different parties, so the right has been winning the elections by default, despite the fact that only about 40% of the public wants them to. The public can't do much about it, because the number one concern of any political party is to perpetuate its own existence (and secure power)....so the inertial forces against those 3 center-left parties swallowing their foolish pride and surrendering a bit of their old identity by joining forces is immense.

They'd have to think of the common good before themselves!!! :-D

As for the conservatives, their primary wish is to do everything the USA wants them to, including sending Canadian forces to fight in pointless wars that are not in the interest of the Canadian public. Why do they do this? Because they are being paid handsomely to do it, that's why.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 11:08 AM

"Try to get a hold of this. there were these communities of hard working, not terribly well educated people No money had been spent on educating them"

Exactly the same amount of money was being spent educating them as was spent being educating everyone else. What you have in life are choices, some hard, some easy, some through necessity.

Odd thing about the Home Countries of my childhood, amongst the poor in Scotland and in Wales there was this terrific respect for education and the benefits a good education could bestow. Our family had friends who were from minimg communities in the North East, in Methil (Fife) and guys I played rugby against down in South Wales. The common thing you heard in Methil and in Wales from miners was, "No son of mine will go down the pit", most ended up going all the way through higher education and on to university, those that didn't went through apprenticeships with day release courses and night school. In the North East not once did I ever hear anybody say that - it was the easy option to go down the pit. Met quite a few who went to the Royal Navy and into the Royal Marines.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 11:24 AM

Chris woodhead (was ever a man so aptly named!) was in The Times at the weekend saying that the system in the 1950's was right. Just the top ten percent passed A level - regardless of how clever the entrants were and the quality of their answers.

So really, in the days you were talking about Teribus - education was never going to be an infallible route out of the pits. Certainly I knew some pretty clever miners who got bugger all out of their years in a sump sec. mod. it was an exclusive system.

In truth English education is still pretty much - one size fits all. A Canadian exchange teacher at our sec mod was disgusted at the way we wasted our children's talents. made no real provision for educating working class non academic kids.

I hate the way there are all these performance arts places - as though they're all going to win the X factor.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 11:53 AM

"Certainly I knew some pretty clever miners who got bugger all out of their years in a sump sec. mod. it was an exclusive system.

In truth English education is still pretty much - one size fits all."


Ah yes the English Comprehensive System - one size fits all - introduced in 1965 by??? - Harold Wilson's Labour Government.

There was nothing wrong with what it replaced, but to enact some social engineering experiment they destroyed a perfectly good system, many today wish that we could return to it - you reward excellence - a thing that "old" Labour would never acknowledge, mind you their leadership didn't mind taking advantage of it - straight out of Animal Farm.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 01:35 PM

Well the aim of comprehensively educating the population is a noble one that I subscibe to.

THe fault lies with clinging onto all the old garbage from the past.

the Grammar school i attended was a dump by any standards. We had a reunion of four of us a year or two back - we'd all done reasonably well - despite differing fortunes.

But we all agreed it was a crap preparation for life. They took the top 18% of the population. Of those about five kids a year got to university, and it was just geared up for those five.

the rest of us just had to make out as best we could.

The trouble is with education experts - they think they are too bloody clever by half. thus you get the nonsense of that National Curriculum. And of course you can always get lickspittles like Woodhead to step into line and rubber stamp it. No one has the balls to say - this is rubbish. Well its in no ones interest - cept the kids, and they don't count.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 05:06 PM

I agree that providing someone a comprehensive education is a wonderful thing - what a pity Harold Wilson's Comprehensive Education crusade couldn't deliver it. Too busy making everyone equal (great pity that in life, and I mean all forms of it, nobody is equal), too busy being non-competitive (when the reality is that life is extremely competitive), too busy social engineering for "the party's" benefit. There is only one political party that strives to maintain the downtrodden masses - the socialist Labour Party because they need their voters kept where they want them and where they can manipulate them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 05:53 PM

The point of any sensibly organized and responsible society (and political order) is NOT to make everyone equal, because that's impossible.

It is to ensure that everyone has equal protection under the law, equal civil rights, and equal opportunity to get an education, get a job, find housing, get medical care, etc. How they make use of those equal opportunities is entirely up to them, and that's where you will see that some do much better than others, because people are not equal in their talents, abilities, and motivations.

That's perfectly natural. You can have a socialist system where some will do far better than others, because they apply themselves to the opportunities around them far better than others.

You can also have a capitalist system where that happens.

And you can have a mixed system of capitalism and socialism where that happens.

I'm in favour of the latter.

It is an oft-repeated canard of the political Right that the Left wants to "make everyone equal". That is not true, it's never been true, and it simply cannot happen, because more motivated, determined, and capable people WILL do better and get farther in ANY system, regardless of whether it is leftist, rightist or centrist in nature.

The problem with the right wing movements that have arisen in the wake of the Reagan era is not that they encouraged competition. Genuine, honest competition is good. It is that they encouraged rampant corruption through de-regulation of lending institutions and they encouraged a rich corporate elite to run wild, commit fraud, and do completely irresponsible things to society just to enrich itself further...at the expense of the middle class and the public in general.

This was not just irresponsible. It was criminal. And we are seeing the results of that criminal behaviour all around us.

That was initiated by the political Right under Ronald Reagan...but does the political Left have clean hands? Hardly! The political Left has been playing ball with those same corporate elites since the 1980s...but is continually pretending not to. The large political parties have all been bought out long ago by the financial elites, regardless which side of the spectrum they pretend to be on.

Obama, supposedly an opponent of the Right, is using financial advisors who came straight from the corporate ranks of those who were responsible for the 2008 financial meltdown in the USA, which was a pyramid scheme that finally collapsed in on itself. I don't believe for a moment that Obama represents any real alternative to what preceded him. He just talks as if he did.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 09:01 PM

Well Harold was allright in some ways. I got my degree from the Open University - now thats an idea that wouldn't have occurred to a tory as long as they had a hole in their arse.

Bit of a shit in others, i suppose.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 01:05 AM

The first six paragraphs of your last post I absolutely agree with

"It is an oft-repeated canard of the political Right that the Left wants to "make everyone equal". That is not true, it's never been true, and it simply cannot happen, because more motivated, determined, and capable people WILL do better and get farther in ANY system, regardless of whether it is leftist, rightist or centrist in nature."

That on other hand I do not. Not true, never true?? That has not been the experience in the UK. Labour Government means massive explosion in the Public sector and strangulation of the Private sector. The only trouble with that is that a large Public sector will never promote growth and prosperity and only increses the costs which a diminishing Private sector must pay. With Labour you always get "Big Central Government" and more regulation and more legislation than you can shake limp dick at - none of it encourages anything, capable people do get further but that is inspite of a socialist government than because of it.

Ah so Reagan caused the financial melt down did he?? It had nothing whatsoever to do with the collapse of the Sub Prime Mortgage market, which always existed and rubbed along quite nicely until during Bill Clinton's second term the two main mortgage brokers in the USA "Fanny & Freddie" were told to broker mortgages for people who should never have been lent money in the first place - commonly know as bad risks. This was done backed by a false impression given by the Clinton administration that the money for these loans would be guaranteed by the US Federal Bank. Only one thing wrong with all of that - the Federal Bank had made no such agreement.

In fact the "Fed" knew nothing about it until things started to come apart and people were borrowing money based on the supposed increased value of their properties (now you had all these bad risks playing at being financial gurus - driven by their greed, their necessity or by their stupidity). By this time GWB was in his second term and when the banks and Freddie & Fanny approached his administration and the "Fed" to stand by their guarantee they said "What Guarantee? Nothing whatsoever to do with us".

What should have happened was that GWB should have got the Fed to jump in then, right at the start, had he done so there would have been no meltdown at all and it would have been a damn sight cheaper for the US.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 02:28 AM

Harold also kept us out of Vietnam.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 02:42 AM

I quite agree that the Clinton administration was deeply complicit in helping to cause the financial meltdown, and I agree with your comments about the Sub Prime Mortgage market.

I don't blame just Ronald Reagan for what has happened. I blame EVERY American administration and president since 1980 for what has happened, Clinton no less than the others. I am not taking sides on that between Democratic and Republican administrations, because I think they're both in it up to their ears.

As I know little about the activities of British Labour governments, past or present, I can't comment on that. What you say about Labour may be correct. My general impression, though, is that none of your political parties are worth a damn, and I'd say exactly the same about the Canadian political parties and the American political parties: not one of them is worth a damn. They are not serving the general public. They all pretend to, but they are not doing so. They are serving their rich friends and cronies in the financial and business elite who fund their political campaigns and who work with them (and control them) once they are in office.

And they are quite happy to play off various different sectors of the public against each other which is where all the hoopla about "left" and "right" comes in. It allows them to divide and conquer. As long as they can keep you and Big Al and millions of others like you fighting with and detesting each other as long as you live over the imagined Left/Right divide, they've got you right where they want you.

You always seem to notice when I sharply criticize the Right. But you seem not to notice when I sharply criticize the Left. Or at least you don't make any mention of it. Why is that? Does it not register on your radar?

I also agree with you that "What should have happened was that GWB should have got the Fed to jump in then, right at the start"...but I don't regard the Fed as an honest protector of the American public. Nevertheless, Bush did not take decisive action, and he should have.

As for Obama, I am not impressed at all with him either. He seems a lot like Bush all over again to me (although he doesn't look or sound like Bush). He just mostly does what Bush would probably do in the final analysis. I suspect that's because they really work for much the same entrenched interests...and their so-called parties are a 2-headed sham...one that works brilliantly to divide a frightened public and keep them naively imagining that the next presidential "election" will deliver them from the gangsters they are ruled by.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 02:47 AM

>>
I quite agree that the Clinton administration was deeply complicit in helping to cause the financial meltdown,<<

That is the second stupidest thing I have read on this thread. The Stupidest was Teribus talking about Reagan being to blame. The Bush had eight years to stop that runaway train. What they did was add more cars and disable the breaks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 09:49 AM

My point about Thatcher never having the support of a majority of voters was to forestall the frequent claim that most people voted for her, so serve them right.

The fact that governments that it is almost unheard of for governments in Britain to have majority support is something that they should always take into account in ruling, and modify their behaviour to reflect it - when they act and talk as if they did have majority support they should always be challenged.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Musket
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 11:23 AM

And for those who thought democracy was over rated....

Mind you, my views of Th*tcher apart, I must take a little bit of issue with Al's comment about lads in mining communities being not so well educated. I appreciate you were trying to do so, but the statistics were not quite as bad as you think.

When I got my engineer's ticket (basically a HNC called AMEME (hons) it sounded good but at Manton pit back then, the other electricians included twenty odd BSc, a smattering of MSc and to my recollection, eight of us were chartered engineers. I ended up with a PhD, and my son, who also used to work down the pit is presently researching his. Every lad down the pit since the mid '60s had spent a year minimum at college before even taking out labouring jobs such as haulage.

it was a skilled job regardless of what you did and that became part of the problem. Highly intelligent skilled people but the training and qualifications were not much use outside of mining. That's the awful legacy, lack of transferable skills when industry as a whole was on its knees.

That's why her lack of understanding of her own citizens caused so much hardship and grief.

That's why she felt she could call her own citizens "the enemy within."

That's why I hope she rots in Hell.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 11:28 AM

Hang about:

"The Stupidest was Teribus talking about Reagan being to blame." - Jack the Sailor

Where and when did I ever say that anything about Reagan being to blame? My only mention of Reagan was to ask a question:

"Ah so Reagan caused the financial melt down did he??"

And of course Reagan DID NOT.

As far as politics go I think that much to your surprise you would find that you and I Little Hawk would on most things find ourselves very much in agreement.

"It allows them to divide and conquer. As long as they can keep you and Big Al and millions of others like you fighting with and detesting each other as long as you live over the imagined Left/Right divide, they've got you right where they want you.

You always seem to notice when I sharply criticize the Right. But you seem not to notice when I sharply criticize the Left. Or at least you don't make any mention of it. Why is that? Does it not register on your radar?


I am not fighting with Big Al and most certainly do not detest him, he is in all probability a very nice bloke and if his songs and music are anything to go by extremely enjoyable and entertaining company.

I would describe myself a A-political, but I will react when people make statements that I believe to be inaccurate or downright incorrect.

I am in accord with MtheGM when he said:

"I still feel the obloquy in which she is held to be unjust. Scargill was more malign than foolish, imo; and the idiot hyperbolical denunciations we keep hearing ["most evil woman of C20", some fool wrote on a thread not long since, genuinely appearing to feel she outranked Irma Grese of Elena Ceausecu or Myra Hindley in evil! - what a fatuous formulation] rub me up intolerably.

She has become a mere scapegoat for the idiocy of the leftie opposition: a boo-figure bogey-woman for the unthinking or won't-think mob mentality."


She had a job to do and was asked to it by the British electorate. She was a leader who actually provided leadership. Currently in the USA they have a President who is incapable of leading - I know for certain which is the more dangerous.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 11:39 AM

Ah, well, exactly the same thing happens in Canada, McGrath. The Conservatives, elected to a majority with only about 40% public support, act as if they had a majority mandate for the Canadian public.

Face it, political parties are corrupted institutions who seek power because they want it, and who do everything possible to retain power once they get it, and who will sell their souls to the highest bidder without a flicker of remorse. A political party is a gang. It's easy to corrupt a gang...just offer them a lot of money and let them rule the local turf.

But do not expect them to be public servants. They serve themselves.

I honestly believe that the only way to solve this sordid situation is to do what was done previously with the absolute monarchies which governed most of the word. Get rid of political parties. Disband them. Have indepedents run for office everywhere, people who are not connected to any political party organization, people who only represent themselves, their personal ideas and experience, and all of whom are funded equally from the public purse and who all get equal media coverage. And make elections much shorter and fare less costly than they presently are...like about 2% of the present cost. And do not divide the government into partisan blocs, but have it be an assembly of equals...as it once was, for example, in Athens...or as it is now in various city governments. I think that political parties should be done away with entirely.

This proposal, I imagine, will be met with hoots of derision from various quarters and I will be told it's an impossible idea.......

........which is just the sort of reaction I'd have gotten from a lot of conventional minds in 1650 if I'd proposed getting rid of the absolute (or otherwise) monarchs who governed much of Europe and replacing them with publicly elected assemblies of representatives.

Fine. (shrug) I'm just freely expressing my own ideas. I don't expect them to change the world. I'm not going to lose any sleep if a variety of people here disagree with them or if they are not adopted by the world around me. I'm just one person, and I'm just talking, period. And that's what everyone else here is doing too, just talking, and that's fine with me. That's normal. It's nothing to get in fights with each other about, cos that doesn't solve anything either.

If we disagree....fine. Okay. No sweat. Life goes on.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 11:54 AM

Teribus - Those were interesting and reasonable comments on your part in that last post. I might be called apolitical too, because there's no political party out there that I have any faith in anymore. I'm disgusted with both the "Right" and the "Left"...and not much impressed by "the center" (if there is one).

I didn't much care for Margaret Thatcher, but I do agree that she provided genuine leadership, no question about that...and that Obama does not do so. In the case of Canada, Pierre Trudeau certainly provided genuine leadership. That doesn't necessarily mean one had to like the way he governed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 01:32 PM

Twice since the war we've had governments elected with majorities in Parliament who had actually received fewer votes than the party that came second.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 02:23 PM

It happens to be the system we have, Kevin; so you are going to have to live with it. You know there have been numerous polls &c to test how popular another system would be: never been anywhere near a majority for trying anything else.

It's probably a bit like democracy in general ~~ who was it who described democracy as "the worst possible system - except for all the others"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 02:28 PM

Answer ~~~

-Churchill's famous dictum: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 04:51 PM

"never been anywhere near a majority for trying anything else."

That, MtheGM, is because most of the public haven't given any serious thought to the alternatives, they don't even understand the alternatives, the powers that be have made sure to tell them VERY LITTLE about the alternatives, and most people are afraid of change, therefore they vote to maintain the status quo which they are familiar with.

Most dogs react exactly the same way to any suggested change in their established routines! ;-)

Sheer ignorance and inertia are what are maintaining the public's tacit consent to the spectacularly undemocratic political processes we are presently living under.

It won't change until it breaks under the weight of its own dysfunctionality, in my opinion. And there's no guarantee that that will result in something better.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Musket
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 03:57 AM

Well, she certainly had something or I wouldn't be rattling on about her entry on the civilisation wall of shame.

I am apolitical, I sympathise with some of the stances on both sides of the economic argument, I speak highly of some Tories, also of some Labour politicians..

So here I am, many years on, and still cannot even bring myself to even consider a single redeeming feature of the bitch. (See? If it were about anybody else, I wouldn't use such terms.) So there has to be something..

I have had my photo taken with Bliar at No.10, been invited to many receptions there and other Whitehall places, garden parties etc. In some ways, a part of the establishment, having held public office. So I do tend to at least try to be rational. But her? Never. I can't even bring myself to sound rational about her.

Is that a fault in me or a fault in her? Methinks the later, all the same.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 11:12 AM

I gather you would not have considered marriage, then, had she been available?



;-D


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 05:16 PM

You missed the point I was making MtheGm, which is that we should never allow any government (or their supporters) to claim falsely that they have majority support just because they have won a parliamentary majority with a plurality (or even a minority) of popular votes.

That is a separate matter from whether a different system of voting might be preferable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 05:22 PM

Well put.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 05:43 PM

I got your point perfectly well, Kevin. You failed to get mine, which is that happens to be the way we are governed. Someone elected three times hand-running under our system is, within our system, the choice of the people: it is mere pissing-in-the-wind bitching to deny this on fatuously inapplicable statistical grounds which there is no popular will whatever to emend. By your reckoning, we have had no government since 1950 with a mandate from the electorate to govern. Isn't it amazing how much more stable our governments have been over the period than those of all those other places with the marvellously fair, fully-representative systems whose governments survive for all of 10 minutes on a good day!

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 11:45 PM

So you like that status quo, MtheGM? Have you found it to your benefit in some way? Not implying anything nasty by that, I'm just wondering. You appear to be pleased with the results of the present political system.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 12:16 AM

LH ~ I have expressed no opinion as to whether or not I 'like' it. I am sure that, like almost all human states, it has its pros & its cons. And it happens to be the one we have. And the general consensus as to its operation & effectiveness would seem, I repeat, from all polls, surveys, &c, to be that it ain't broke so why fix it?

This, I reiterate, is no expression of my own 'liking' or otherwise'; but simply an expression of the facts of the status quo, to the realities of which had we not all better adjust as it isn't going to alter any day soon?

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 11:20 AM

We have all already adjusted to the realities of the situation, MtheGM. We live with those realities.

I myself stated that it's probably not going to change soon, because people (like dogs, monkeys, etc) strenuously resist change. They're afraid of it...and they're also victims of their own inertia.

Corrupt ruling systems can take great comfort in the above weaknesses of the human population, because it helps keep them in power longer. ;-) A lazy and unresponsive public are easily dominated by an elite few.

Our present political systems are flawed, obviously...as are all political systems. They lie somewhere between the possible extremes, which is to say: They could be a lot worse than they are. And they could be a lot better than they are.

Why are you taking issue with certain people here discussing ways in which our present political systems could be improved upon? What is harmful in doing so? How does it indicate a disconnect with "reality" to so?

Or is it that you are just trying to win the ongoing argument that you're having with McGrath? If so, you're engaged in what amounts to a never-ending feedback loop which will only end when one or another of the participants gets too bored with the whole thing to continue. ;-)

And when I get too bored with it, you won't hear any more from me about it either. ;-)

That's the way it works here.

When it's all over, though, no one will have won anything.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 12:29 PM

Yeah, sure, anything you say. Cool it. I agree with every word you say ~~ except I didn't even realise I was having any sort of argument with McGrath, ongoing or otherwise.

Did you, Kevin?

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 01:05 PM

Maybe "argument" was the wrong word.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 01:55 PM

Nothing wrong with arguments, so long as they aren't quarrels.

No disagreement that "this is the way we are governed" in England at least, and to a lesser extent for the other parts of the United Kingdom, where the devolved administrations aren't based on the same strange system.

The term "mandate" is one I dislike, because it tends to imply that governments act in accordance with their electoral manifestos, which isn't generally true. And I do not accept that it can ever be true to say that a government reflects "the popular will" merely because they succeeded in winning a parliamentary majority.

For example, the present government has a majority which is based largely on the fact that many people voted deliberately voted to keep out the Tories.

That doesn't mean it isn't "legitimate" - but it should mean that they should claim ti represent majority opinion, unless in certain circumstances they can demonstrate that that is the case.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 02:24 PM

Yeah, sure, a government is legitimate if it was elected according to the present system of "first past the post"...but it isn't legitimate for that government to pretend that it has the support of a majority of the people when it plainly does not...and to behave as if it had a mandate based upon the will of a majority of the people.

However, politicians are anything but scrupulous. ;-D They play the game to win. Once they have power, they are certainly not inclined to share it.

Again, you could say the same about Alpha dogs, couldn't you?

I'd like to think humanity could do better than that, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 04:33 PM

Obviously I mean to say they shouldn't claim to represent majority opinion. But I doubt if that correction is really needed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 05:32 AM

--Yeah, sure, a government is legitimate if it was elected according to the present system of "first past the post"...but it isn't legitimate for that government to pretend that it has the support of a majority of the people when it plainly does not...and to behave as if it had a mandate based upon the will of a majority of the people.


I mean to say they shouldn't claim to represent majority opinion.--

.,,. I see the points you are both making, obviously. But would point out that these anomalies in the mandate to govern [or whatever word you might prefer, K] are obviated by the fact that everyone knows that they are subsumed within the system; it is accepted that, having won the election under the system which obtains, they represent what is accepted as the popular will ~~ in the sense that there is manifestly no popular appetite to alter this system, whose results are acceptable to the populace, otherwise there would be such appetite; wouldn't there?

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 09:12 AM

What worries me is that cattle who are marched to a trough every day of their lives and who have never seen grass appear content to eat ground-up corn meal spiked with a variety of drugs and hormones, because they don't know any better. They appear to be giving consent to the arrangement, but do they have a real choice under those circumstances?

The fact is, they'd be far better off out on a natural meadow, eating grass and other plants, as cows did for hundreds of thousands of years until some agri-corporations got the idea of raising them in factory farm conditions.

I think the present public is in a somewhat analogous position, like domesticated animals who don't know or understand what's happening to them. And their leaders are analogous to the boards of directors and CEOs of the agri-corporations.

That's not a healthy situation for the general public, to put it mildly. They imagine themselves to be free, but they are not.

The complete abolition of political parties would go a long way toward fixing our present political system, in my opinion, but I don't expect to see it happen any time soon. "First past the post" would cease to have much relevance if there were no political parties, because a legislature or parliament would not be divided into competing partisan power blocs which jockey against one another, it would be an assembly of independent equals who would have to debate and compromise amongst each other, and they would not be beholden to a party structure or a party line. Each could think and act freely. I think that would be far more likely to produce a real functioning democracy than is the case with a partisan system.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 10:09 AM

"Each could think and act freely"


errrmm..

or Each could be bribed and bought off individually by corporate lobbyists and maintain a facade of acting freely... ????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 05:34 PM

"The popular will" is the kind of terminology typically used by dictatorships. I don't trust the term.

Governments don't operate according to "the popular will" - they operate by what seems like a good idea at the time, taking into account what they think might help to shape things so that they get elected next time (and what might help their political careers along the way).

Insofar as "the popular will" enters into the picture what matters is the actual picture at the moment, not back in the last election.

The last election, and any promises that may have been made in the manifesto or during the election, are past history, at times useful to dredge up for rhetorical purposes, but at other times best forgotten and obscured.

What led the Tory bigwigs to ditch Thatcher was not whether there was or wasn't wasn't any "mandate" for the poll tax in the previous manifesto, it was the explosion of anger in the streets, expressed in plummeting Tory votes in by-elections etc.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 06:15 PM

punkfolkrocker - "or Each could be bribed and bought off individually by corporate lobbyists and maintain a facade of acting freely... ????"

Yes, I anticipated that response coming from someone. And it is a possibility. Definitely. And it would certainly be attempted by the corporate lobbyists. And in some cases it would certainly succeed.

But do you see that if an elected legislator was an independent person free of any "party line" pressure from a centralized party top brass, that that person would be freer to think for themselves and represent their constituents, rather than becoming a passive puppet of the party line? A legislator could act independently then according to conscience and not be punished by the party for doing so, which is what happens now.

And I think the lobbyists would find it harder to corrupt the system in that case...since they wouldn't be so easily able to corrupt it "from the top down", which is how they do it now. They'd have to deal with every single legislator, and there would likely be some who would be honest, and expose and draw attention to what was going on. Without a party top brass to whip them into line, they wouldn't be so afraid to speak out.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 08:21 PM

hi.. Little Hawk ..

seeing as you are the person I most respect at mudcat, I'm in no way having a go at you..

and it would be a great alternative system..

But, in my limited knowledge and understanding, a serious underlying flaw
is the nature & profile of politicians clinging to power under the existing party system.

They would be exactly the same individuals who would seek election to power as independents.

They'd all emerge from exactly the same limited gene pool and sociocultural family backgrounds.

The absence of any formal parties would not stop them quickly gathering in informal groupings
bonded by blood ties and shared social histories & educational networking...

with shared ideological inclinations, ambitions and ultimate selfish goals...

and they'd still bamboozle the electorate to ensure lesser educated and connected candidates from blue collar backgrounds
failed to win seats in Govt.


still wouldn't trust them..


sorry, it's nearly 30 years since I graduated my degree on this sort of thing and turned my back on academia
and I frustatingly can't remember anymore of teh vocabulary or words and concepts..

But I'm sure you know where I'm heading with this...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 09:24 PM

Little Hawk is in that rarest group of political thinkers. The Defeatist Utopians.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 12:44 AM

Here's an opinion piece that was published in the New York Times on December 7. The author is British, so don't blame us Americans for it.

Bring the Iron Lady Back


By RICHARD VINEN

MARGARET THATCHER has long been reviled by the British left, so much so that the singer Elvis Costello once fantasized about stomping on her grave in his 1989 song "Tramp the Dirt Down." But Mrs. Thatcher achieved more than any other British peacetime prime minister of the 20th century. It is rumored that, when she dies, she will receive a state funeral — an honor rarely accorded to anyone except monarchs. There are also plans for a public celebration.

Her life is the inspiration for a new movie that opens later this month, starring Meryl Streep as "The Iron Lady." It chronicles Mrs. Thatcher's divisive policies as prime minister as she led Britain through the economic doldrums of the 1980s. It was a time when the country faced financial ruin and politicians were compelled to make hard choices.

Mrs. Thatcher was a tough, adversarial leader. She was never liked, even by those who supported her policies, and she was hated by those who opposed her.

Yet her political style may be just what Britain needs right now. The country is in the midst of an economic crisis that will force the government to make difficult, unpopular decisions. And that is what Mrs. Thatcher did so well. Facing long-term economic decline and the brooding menace of the Soviet Union, she broke the trade unions, sold off nationalized industries and helped imbue British capitalists with a confidence that they had not felt since the death of Queen Victoria.

She was at her best when the odds seemed against her or when she had clear enemies. In 1982, she sent an armada to fight the Argentines in the Falkland Islands. And in 1984-85, she held out against a strike by the National Union of Mineworkers, which had been powerful enough to bring down a government 10 years before.

Although Mrs. Thatcher has become a respected symbol of statesmanship outside Britain, she remains a reminder of social division within it. In 2008, the future foreign secretary, William Hague, sought to reassure American officials that he and David Cameron, soon-to-be prime minister, were "Thatcher's children." When his comment leaked, the Labour opposition seized upon it, keen to circulate the quote in the hopes that it would stir up old anti-Thatcher feelings. And despite being in power today, Conservative leaders still worry that they are associated with the bitterness of the Thatcher years. They speak of changing their image as "the nasty party" and the need to "detoxify the brand."

One reason British politicians feel uncomfortable with Thatcherism is that Britain has been relatively prosperous in the last two decades, at least in part because of things the Thatcher government did: tax cuts, financial-sector deregulation and weaker unions all made Britain a more attractive place to do business.

A new generation of politicians who grew up in an age of prosperity has ceased to think of politics in terms of hard choices and scarce resources; Mr. Cameron belongs to that generation. He was just 12 years old when Mrs. Thatcher came to power in 1979 and he became leader of the Conservative Party in 2005, when the current economic storms seemed almost unimaginable. Even when Mr. Cameron became prime minister last year, the financial crisis still felt, to most of the British electorate, like something short-term and vaguely unreal.

But British politics has lost something with its post-Thatcher embrace of consensus and optimism. Thatcherism was a galvanizing force. It mobilized right-wingers to do things, such as selling off huge state-owned corporations, that many of them would once have considered impossible. It also mobilized the left to develop radical alternatives: during the 1980s, the Labour Party veered toward support for unilateral nuclear disarmament and increased state intervention in the economy.

Unlike today, voters in 1983 faced clear choices. A vote for Thatcher's Tories was a vote for large-scale privatization; a vote for Labour was a vote for socialism. A Conservative vote meant keeping Britain in the European Economic Community; a Labour vote meant withdrawal. A Tory vote meant stationing American cruise missiles in Britain; a Labour vote meant that they would be stopped.

There are no longer such clear-cut choices. Explicit talk of class interests and inequality have been replaced by a vaguer and less divisive language of "fairness" and "equal opportunity."

The major political parties look remarkably similar today. All are led by clean-cut 40-somethings who blend social liberalism (support for same-sex marriage and opposition to the death penalty) with acceptance of the free market. Indeed, the Conservatives now find themselves governing with strange bedfellows, in a coalition with the small Liberal Democrat Party, whose president recently described Thatcherism as "organized wickedness." Mrs. Thatcher hated coalitions. She most likely would have preferred to lose an election than to govern without an outright parliamentary majority.

Unlike Mr. Cameron, Mrs. Thatcher came to power at a time when people felt desperate. This desperation, and the sense that she might be the last chance to restore Britain's fortunes, accounted for much of her success.

Thatcherism was not an alien invasion. It reflected a consensus by many members of the British establishment that things could not go on as they were. This is why so many supported Mrs. Thatcher's policies, even when they disliked her personally.

Mr. Cameron is certainly a more likable figure than Mrs. Thatcher, but likability may not be enough when the British people realize that their current predicament — requiring government spending cuts at a time of rising unemployment and financial chaos in Europe — is actually worse than the crisis when Mrs. Thatcher came to power in 1979.

In these circumstances, it will take a bracing dose of Thatcherite ideological confrontation to revive British politics.

Richard Vinen, a professor of history at King's College, London, is the author of "Thatcher's Britain: The Politics and Social Upheaval of the 1980s."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 12:53 AM

hey joe..

a fairly astute and concise neutral summary..

until the last sentence..

"it will take a bracing dose of Thatcherite ideological confrontation to revive British politics."

fair few of us brits would turn it round and question..

"will it ???"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Yanks make a Thatcher film!!!
From: GUEST,punkfokrocker
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 12:55 AM

"must it !!!???"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 24 September 6:25 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 2022 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.