|
05 Aug 05 - 04:57 AM (#1535478) Subject: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: akenaton Margaret Thatcher when UK prime minister famously said..."There's no such thing as society". Events last week seem to bear this out. A young man was stabbed to death on a London bus one week ago, after asking another youth to stop throwing potatoe chips. Although the bus was crowded with passengers, only one woman went to the assistance of the dying man. She later said,"as the young man lay bleeding,I asked the others for help to call police or assist with first aid. Most of them just averted their eyes, nobody rose from their seats to help. It was unbelievable". Later, only 6 people would help police with details. Is this what it has come to?..Has Thatchers rotten selfish ideology killed any any real compassion in us. Thachers credo is now being implimented by her protege Blair. Where is the wonderful "way of life" that we are spending millions to protect. Its time to ask serious questions of the politicians who seem oblivious to the results of their policies. |
|
05 Aug 05 - 06:10 AM (#1535505) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Dave Hanson You could be right ake, but earlier evemts in London shows the human spirit in good order. eric |
|
05 Aug 05 - 06:23 AM (#1535511) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: akenaton Ok Eric...But not so long ago the bombers were also members of our society. What happened to turn them against us? There are extremists in all religions, but we had no real problems with Islamic extremism until we followed Blair on his crusade. |
|
05 Aug 05 - 06:27 AM (#1535513) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Dave Hanson Again you could be right, this man is NOT a labour politician. eric |
|
05 Aug 05 - 07:46 AM (#1535539) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: The Shambles She was about as far to the right as one could get. |
|
05 Aug 05 - 10:07 AM (#1535606) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: mooman No she was not right. What was the question? moo |
|
05 Aug 05 - 10:09 AM (#1535609) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Dave Hanson Just a thought, she possibly saved many miners lives by closing so many pits, with her psychpathic paranoid hatred of trade unions in general and miners in particular. She would be devastated to learn this, I think I'll let her know. eric |
|
05 Aug 05 - 10:25 AM (#1535627) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Ringer Was [Mrs] Thatcher right?" In general, I think she was. As to the now notorious quote (talking to Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987), it's not so bad in context: "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." What she's saying is that the bills of the feckless who cast themselves on "society" are, in fact, paid by individuals like you, me and their families. Seems utterly reasonable to me. |
|
05 Aug 05 - 10:36 AM (#1535639) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Piers Eric, she just transferred miners deaths elsewhere. South Africa now is the biggest exporter of coal to the UK: "Safety standards and technology lag far behind those in Australia, the United States, Britain and Canada. As evidence, the union points to statistics that show South African mines are many times more dangerous than those in other countries. For example, the fatality rate in South Africa's coal mines in 1992 was 0.64 per 1000 workers compared to 0.43 in NSW, 0.36 in the US, and 0.08 in the UK." http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1994/155/155p14.htm |
|
05 Aug 05 - 10:51 AM (#1535654) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Dave Hanson Ringer, society is judged by how it treats it's poorest members, Thatcher promoted greed and avarice as being virtues. I hope she dies a slow painful death. Ewan MacColl hated her with a vengance, I think I'm second. eric |
|
05 Aug 05 - 11:13 AM (#1535659) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Paul Burke Thatcher and her little boy Bliar certainly looked after themselves. The government that wrecked Britain's industrial base, made millions unemployed, replaced well- paid jobs in which people could take pride with McJobs on short term contracts... then called them feckless. Feck off. |
|
05 Aug 05 - 12:22 PM (#1535706) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST Of course there's no such thing as society until it needs protecting, then the feckless get asked to put on the uniform and go and die for their country |
|
05 Aug 05 - 12:23 PM (#1535707) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Shakey A sound bite and one example. An impressive basis for a debate, I'm sure TB is arranging a crisis meeting at this very moment. |
|
05 Aug 05 - 02:20 PM (#1535814) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: akenaton Earlier this week an off duty Israeli soldier boarded a bus in an Arab area, produced a gun and killed six Arabs, including two young girls. The remaining passengers overpowered the soldier, the bus was surrounded and the man beaten to death on the spot. Rough justice, but at least they cared what happened to their brothers and sisters. Which society is better?...If we as a nation really cared for others, Blair would be impeached and possibly jailed for the consequeces of his action in Iraq, and the thousands of innocent civilians killed in our name. The legacy of Thatcher and Blair, is a nation who care more for the antics of the freaks on Big Brother than for the crimes committed by us and to us in real life...Ake |
|
05 Aug 05 - 02:38 PM (#1535835) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: alanabit I know what you are saying akenaton. Does community spirit and common decency belong to another age? I am appalled at what happened in that bus, but I am not going to let myself believe that it is the only face of my compatriots nowadays. Only four weeks ago, the driver of a bus, on which a bomb had already exploded, had to be restrained forcibly from trying to search the wreckage for survivors. The emergency services feared that a second bomb might explode. A few years ago, while waiting for a ferry from Dover back to the continent, I witnessed an incident. Ina and I heard shouting and screaming from the other side of the road. I did not see everything, but I ran towards the screaming woman, who was being beaten and kicked by a man. It was only about fifty yards away, but by the time I had crossed the road and got there, three other men were on the scene. One man had nabbed the assailant. The second man was attempting to thump the bully, but he in turn was being restrained by the third man. Law and order only works if everyone supports it. That is what happened that day, when an attempted child snatch was foiled. Ina was impressed and it was one of the occasions on which I genuinely felt proud to be British. Sometimes the right thing does happen. |
|
05 Aug 05 - 02:44 PM (#1535840) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Little Hawk NO! |
|
05 Aug 05 - 03:52 PM (#1535894) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: sapper82 If anyone with an open mind (few and far between in some quarters) would like to read the full text of the interview where she made that oft misquoted comment, it is here:- "There is no such thing as Society" As to the question, was she right? In the context of that article, most certainly. Society, if it is to work at all, must be built on the efforts of individual men and women who are prepared to accept personal responsibility for themselves and their families, together with the responsibility of giving assistance to those in need. It has been the trend over the past 60 years to distance the need for personal responsibility from individual actions that has led to the problems we have in our Society today. In addition to the above, the "me first" attitude of greed predated Mrs Thatcher by more than a few years and amongst the first with their noses in the trough were the Unions. How many times during the '60s did the T&GWU, the GM&BMU, ASLEF, the NUR, the EEPTU stand up and swear complete backing to the Nurses for a pittance of a pay rise, then in the next breath demand pay rises several times higher? How many times did "Solomon Binding" help broker agreements between Unions, Wilson's Government and employers, only for the Unions to tear them to shreads? Thank God those days are long gone! |
|
05 Aug 05 - 04:03 PM (#1535902) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Little Hawk I'm not talking about that. I was just referring to Maggie in a general sense... ;-) I'm sure she was right about the odd thing now and then. |
|
05 Aug 05 - 04:21 PM (#1535924) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: akenaton I'm no supporter of the trade unions who were in my opinion just another tool in the Capitalist box, but they were one of the major factors in influencing the Wilson govt not to join America in the obcenity of Vietnam. Blair didn't have to involve us in Iraq, he did it for political expediancy and because he knew he wouldn't have to pay for it , but the British people will. Personally I see a vast difference in society since my youth,the more prosperous we become ,the more insular we become. We have everything we need to live in our own little castles ,we need no one, and one of the casualties is the music and culture we love which will soon be submerged in the karaoke, pop idol swamp. The young, with the exception of the highly politiciced young Muslims, are either money mad users or apathetic defeated drug users. What happened to the idealism that made our young lives worthwhile? Usurped by Blair and his like, who hype and lie and spin, till they've wrung the spirit from us all....Ake |
|
05 Aug 05 - 05:54 PM (#1535983) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST And where did the beautiful people Put all their beautiful things? The love that we carried on banners of smiles And the songs that we all used to sing? |
|
05 Aug 05 - 06:26 PM (#1536002) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: R. Padgett WE did of course have a Civil war in 1984/5 On one side was the NUM through Arthur Scargill who was trying to defend mining industry and jobs. It was a terrible time with Thatcher crying Rule of Law and down with Union power [which she accomplished] at the cost of revenue from North Sea Oil ~ she was a very clever strategist having seen the fall of the late Edward Heath due to union activities We now have a society virtually devoid of heavy industry little mining, a society dependent upon Tourism and Banking Former mining communities like Grimethorpe and no doubt others virtually empty and derelict The reality of mining was miners in poor health, dust ~ emphesemia no jobs for MEN who worked and got paid well for the physical efforts What are the mining lads encouraged to do now learn IT!! Where are the physical jobs now please? Trades men are needed to ensure our utilities are maintained and needs physical effort, yes The Spirit engendered during the miners strike from all sectors of the UK took us back to the War austerity times, with soup kitchens and hand outs That's was Thatcher's legacy a divided Nation Yes Scargill made mistakes he was prophet of doom Both were wrong, both stubborn the maxim jaw jaw was needed ~ but Thatcher was the dictator the Class thing mattered and who was Scargill anyway. Thatcher was convinced that she was the Prime Minister and had RULE of Law on her side, yes but through physical strength of her paid police/army (I wonder what percentage of the electorate had actually voted for her ~ bearing in mind that voting isnt mandatory in this country?) Scargill should have gone to his members ~ so should Thatcher! Yes ex miners lives are much safer now free from the dust, such harsh after math leaving villages crippled, communities split up and men on the dole [yes i know a lot got redundancy pay and good too] but a man needs work to do and says nothing of the pay off in terms of sold out jobs for miners sons (do this IT course young man!!) Prime Ministers now need a fair and reasonable hand in our society, class must no longer be seen as an issue, we all have fair and reasonable opinions to which due regard is needed and we have much more information than we ever did. PMs actions are seen with great clarity and scrutinised on TV and in Parliamentary televised committees and debates We can at least see and hear explanations and make up our own minds regarding decisions made, PMs are called to account for their actions and have difficulty hiding as Thatcher did from proper discourse and divisive action which caused undue hardship which still continues as with any war Openness and accountability is the new watch word I am now non political having been disillusioned by the SDP Liberal merger many years ago i dont like any of 'em now nor the society in which now live Ray Padgett; Barnsley, South Yorkshire |
|
05 Aug 05 - 06:43 PM (#1536009) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: The Curator She was another Winston Churchill, he was prepared to use the army against miners in the 30's. Society splintered via Thatcher's years. Money made money and poverty bore hate.Money has no friends,those years saw a greater class devide since the middle ages.She held a viewpoint of how it was and nothing was up for disscusion. Frankly I hate the woman due to other reasons. I did note a coming together of society briefly after she left and stopped holding John Major by the shoulders.A society grows from a nation. A nation is formed by it's people. Sadly for the British, Blair is too busy pleasing Mr. Bush to focus on it's people and the backlash such a friendship has created. |
|
05 Aug 05 - 07:15 PM (#1536027) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: akenaton Ray Padgett...Remember how the establishment and the media banded together to demonise Scargill, and they've the cheek to boast of "our democracy". I had an uncle who was a miner in the Fife coal field just after the war. He said it was hard and dirty work ,but the miners had real community . Thatcher destroyed that by making every worker a capitalist. Chain them down with morgage payments, all the consumerism they can stomach, thats the only game in town. Thanks for the post Ray!! |
|
05 Aug 05 - 08:03 PM (#1536047) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Shakey Thatcher was pretty evil but she was in the right place at the right time. The country wanted change, you don't get far in this country if you don't have the people with you, it's far too easy just to blame her. The unions were corrupt and, by the way, it wasn't her that defeated the miners, it was the miners themselves in the UDM. To try and show that the UK is morally bankrupt using the one example on the bus is risible. There are plenty of good things happening but ake is never going to see that with his blinding hatred for Blair colouring every post his makes. Blair has won three elections and is as popular as ever, face it ake, the loony left (capitalist toolbox?) lost; the election, the argument and the plot. Blair's performance will pass the test of time, I doubt if ake's will pass the current test match. |
|
06 Aug 05 - 02:31 AM (#1536216) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Dave Hanson I'm with ake, history will judge Bliar like it has Thatcher, he'll be reviled. eric |
|
06 Aug 05 - 03:23 AM (#1536224) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: dianavan "Blair's performance will pass the test of time, I doubt if ake's will pass the current test match." Did this drift into ake's performance? I thought we were talkin' about Thatcher??? Blair? He'll go down as another American flunky. Well spoken and with a great deal of aplomb. But aren't we talkin' about Thatcher??? She'll be remembered as the battleaxe. |
|
06 Aug 05 - 04:16 AM (#1536232) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: akenaton One example ??? There are dozens of examples cited on this forum of the moral bankrupcy of British society at this time. But the most dambing is the example set by our leadership. |
|
06 Aug 05 - 05:17 AM (#1536242) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Strollin' Johnny She was a woman of incredible courage who was prepared to stand up for her beliefs no matter what, she deserves our admiration for that at least. Shame her beliefs were such a crock of shit, she deserves Hell for them. |
|
06 Aug 05 - 05:51 AM (#1536254) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Dave Hanson Nah, if she goes to hell it'll be empty within five minutes. eric |
|
06 Aug 05 - 08:16 AM (#1536307) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Mrs.Duck Never! I agree with all erics sentiments about her. |
|
06 Aug 05 - 09:04 AM (#1536319) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: akenaton Hi Johnny good to hear from you again! I think I agree with you about Thatcher, unlike Blair she certainly wasn't a hypocrite. She actually believed in what she was doing, and knew it would work for those she represented. I never meant this to turn into a Thatcher bashing thread, I was more interested in debating the political reasons behind the changes in our national perception, that allows our prime minester and the majority of his cabinet to carry out such repressive policies at home and abroad and still remain, as Shakibus says, electible. Blair and New Labour are short term, motivated by the need to stay in office above all else, and I believe this culture of deceit has affected most of the UK population. Who these days regards any politician with any degree of respect? Its now accepted that lies and distortion are part of the job. Time we realised that winning elections means nothing if what we get at the end of the process is worthless...Ake |
|
06 Aug 05 - 09:10 AM (#1536325) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Piers So what's the plan Ake? |
|
06 Aug 05 - 10:04 AM (#1536354) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST you lot are thick. Somewhere up the page, you criticize Thatcher for "asking the feckless to put on the uniform and go and die for their country." All of the squaddies i know who were about at the time respected Thatcher for having balls, the Falklands, no compromise with the IRA etc. You dont like in the proper world. Your probably all teachers and dreamers. If you go to Iraq, you will see that the majority of people out there are thankfull to us, and want to see Iraq on its feet. You sad lot and Kerry still want to see American forces pull out of there, nice one. The union strikes and that were a waste of time. Trade Unions have killed british industry. Thats why companies move work abroad where workers are more willing to work without screaming about "our rights, and pay rise." thats all for now |
|
06 Aug 05 - 10:42 AM (#1536386) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Dave Hanson Last guest = anonymous wanker. eric |
|
06 Aug 05 - 10:46 AM (#1536390) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: DMcG I was no fan of Thatcher, but as Ringer said the full quotation was about who pays for things or solves problems and gives a very different flavour to the usual soundbite: And, you know, there is no such thing as society [to pick up the costs]. There are individual men and women, and there are families. Of course, exactly the same could be said for other groups of people: nations, for example. I don't remember her ever suggesting Britan didn't exist, only its individual men and women and families. |
|
06 Aug 05 - 10:47 AM (#1536393) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST,Observer Hey, folks, live under G. Bush for a while and Thatcher looks pretty darn good! |
|
06 Aug 05 - 10:55 AM (#1536396) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Dave Hanson Has anyone ever seen G W Bush and Alfred E Newman in the same room ? eric |
|
06 Aug 05 - 12:17 PM (#1536446) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: akenaton Eric..I'm with you in spirit, but the anonymous wanker has made the argument that the right always make,and its correct from their point of view. Its also the argument that gave Thatcher popularity with the centre. Pragmatism...... they see the world as it is not as we would like it to be, but only in an economic sense and the strategy is always short term. Humanity is seen as a collection of individuals ,there to exploit or be exploited. The notion of a common bond between peoples, is anathma to them. They are safe and secure in the knowledge that power is in their hands through our amazing economic system and they know might will always prevail. But as Blair says, the rules of the game are changing, though not in the way he thinks. The worm has at last turned, in the shape of fundamentalism, and the strong are no longer safe. This is what worries the right, the weak for once have the means to bring the fortresses of power tumbling not by four bombs planted by four crazy young men, but by attacking the economy and public confidence. There is no defense, the agressive posture of Blair and Bush is simply panic and will make matters much worse. Only by disengaging from the Middle East completely and stopping the manipulation of other countries for our interests can we expect a period of peace. |
|
06 Aug 05 - 06:04 PM (#1536580) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: sapper82 Wanker = Anyone who disagrees with Eric? |
|
06 Aug 05 - 06:24 PM (#1536591) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: R. Padgett Sapper the Guest above has posted a number of times his opinion re Iraq War and is inciting hatred against all and sundry, he is a nasty piece of work who wont put his name to his opinions He changes his stance at will All out war against the IRA? you have got to be joking that's how to perpetuate conflict! Trade Unions have not killed off British industry Many factors have contributed to the demise of the industrial base. We do not expect workers to work under slave terms in this country and uk governments have passed laws to protect workers rights Such laws would not have been passed under the uncaring, out of touch Thatcher |
|
06 Aug 05 - 06:32 PM (#1536597) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST,Halyburton |
|
07 Aug 05 - 01:46 AM (#1536715) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Dave Hanson Threads like this seem to draw the Thatcher and tory and capitalist apologists out, like sapper82 and the rest. Incidently I was a trade unionist most of my working life, the last ten years as an activist and an official, but fighting for other peoples rights and defending the less well able against a management who just regarded people as resources, has gained me personally nothing but unemployment and unemployability. I'm not bitter about trade unions but Thatcher and her monetarist cronies can all burn in hell for me. |
|
07 Aug 05 - 06:52 AM (#1536806) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Perhaps it would be a good idea to return to the mediaeval practice of the King riding to war at the head of his army, and we might see a lot less agression. IMHO, of the three under discussion, the only one that would have done so was Thatcher. She was the one with the balls to have gone ashore with the troops in the Falklands. Does anyone imagine that Bush or Blair would have started the invasion of Iraq, if they had to lead from the front? Dream on. Don T. |
|
07 Aug 05 - 07:19 AM (#1536833) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: R. Padgett She would not have dared to have led from the front against the miners! |
|
07 Aug 05 - 07:20 AM (#1536835) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: R. Padgett Nor the miners' wives!! |
|
07 Aug 05 - 09:08 AM (#1536878) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Dave Hanson She paid that twat McGregor millions to close all the pits, then the cheeky bastard had the nerve to apply for a concessionary pensioners ticket for Grantown On Spey Angling Club. eric |
|
07 Aug 05 - 05:34 PM (#1537076) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Richard Bridge Thatcher was of course wrong on most things. 1. There is such a thing as society - the collective will - and it is one of the functions of "society", through the political and fiscal system, to provide for those less privileged, and to arrange to fund such provision by those proprotionatley able to fund it. Otherwise all you have is the law of the jungle (or of the Hell Fire Club viz "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"). 2. Although she did not need to declare war to use military force within the boundaries of the Falklands against an invader, it was unlawful (without first declaring war) to use such force outside those boundaries. Scargill was right about most things - where he failed was that he allowed his enemy to choose the timing and terms of battle. The union/capitalism problem of the Wilson and Heath years lay in the fact that both leaders of capital had the power to extract money from enterprise to the detriment of labour and the leaders of labour had the power to coerce the leaders of capital to provide for labour. What was of course necessary was to curb the power of management to pay excessive salaries to management and excessive dividends to shareholders (and excessive interst to loan funders eg banks). In stead Thatcher stage managed a conflict with Scargill at a time when coal stocks had never been higher (and she had arranged for them to be stockpiled). From this power base, with the aid of legislation intended to emasculate unions, and without putting any restrictions on teh power of capital and management, she sought to reduce the working man (and indeed workers by brain as well as hand) to reliance on capital. This, as will be seen, is adverse to the benefit of soceity. The woman was the enemy of the people and of civilisation. I wish her much suffering. I wish her as much suffering as she caused others. |
|
07 Aug 05 - 11:24 PM (#1537261) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST,sorefingers A milder but no less evil version of all the little runts who have throughout history cause misery and suffering to the world so that they could be famous for a while, so that they could be feared for a while, so that they could wallow in the increased pain and suffering of the old, of the weak, of the poor and of the rest of us. Notice none of them, Napoleon - Hitler - Stalin - Thatcher - ( and today Cheney, Rumsfeldt & Bush, or the three Uhh-monkies )were more than a couple of inches over 5 feet tall. Talk about a chip on yer shoulder gone awry! Also notice that the world would have survived without em just as well and better than with! So for example, Thatcher could have done much to help and nourish native British Industries, instead she and her Paki chums were busy on the 'short sell' scam whenever and wherever they could get it on! |
|
08 Aug 05 - 04:43 PM (#1537907) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: robomatic There was an interesting documentary on the economy shown in the States recently, "Commanding Heights". It compared economic philosophies and it seemed to cast Ms. Thatcher in a good light, but I'm not sure if that's what is meant by the initiating question of "Was She Right?" Trade Unions or Trades Unions are a good thing when they protect workers' rights and a bad thing when they institute featherbedding and luddite policies and result in less open competition. Governments are a good thing when they provide health and environmental standards and good order, and a bad thing when they stifle free expression and the aspirations of private enterprise, and protect the entrenched power and wealth of the powerful and wealthy out of proportion to the protection of anyone else. Society is a good thing when it promotes standards of taste, decency, and humanitarian behavior, and a bad thing when it promotes class interests, crass interests, and any single religion. So, not knowing how Thatcher stacks up, I dunno if I can answer the question. |
|
08 Aug 05 - 06:42 PM (#1537991) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: akenaton Robomatic...The question "was Thatcher right?", referred to her assertion that "there is no such thing as society" I am haunted by the words of the lady on the bus, who asked for assistance to help the dying youth. "Most of them just averted their eyes" she said. We all think this was cowardly and disgraceful conduct, but I see an analogy with public perception of politics in the UK. It seems that our government can do as it wishes without censure. I'm sorry to keep harping on about Iraq, but it really has been a blunder of gigantic proportions, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents, many of them children. It has made the lives of ordinary Iraqis worse than when under the Saddam regime. The much vaunted democratic elections have proved to be a sham, and a vehicle to deliver an Islamic republic. Women are actually going to have fewer rights than when under Saddam , whos regime was secular. There is also the matter of American and British young men being slaughtered daily to no good purpose. In short the whole enterprise has been a disaster, and instead of calling to account the man personally responsible for our envolvment.....Mr Blair, the British public "avert their eyes" and elect him for a third term. When his actions bring suicide bombers onto the London streets....as we warned it would , the British public "avert their eyes" and say it would have happened anyway. The culture of individualism that Thatcher promoted and which has been continued and "improved" by Blair,means that we are unable or unwilling to take collective responsibility for even the vilest of crimes committed by our leaders....Ake |
|
09 Aug 05 - 04:58 AM (#1538241) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: sapper82 eric the red If I am a " Thatcher and tory and capitalist apologist" Can I take it that you are an apologist for the brand of Trade Unionism that came so close to pushing this country into collapse in the '70s? Are you an apologist for the '77/'79 Firemen's strike? Are you an apologist for the Hospital Porters dispute which saw patients being turned away from casualty departments by pickets because they were not ill enough and saw deliveries of heating oil being blocked by the same porters? Are you an apologist for the street cleaners dispute that saw rubbish piled so high in the streets of Glasgow that it became a public health hazzard? Or perhaps you are an apologist for the Grave Diggers dispute that saw bodies being stored in deep freeze lorries because they could not be burried? As a result of those excesses, I went from being a Labour supporter of the late '60s and early '70s to being conservative supporter bvy the mid-'80s and a card carrying member of the Conservative Party by the late '90s. I have no need to appologise for anyone. What Lady Thatcher did was largely in response to the gross excesses of union power that had built up since WW2. Richard Bridge; As you have obviosly not read the text of the Woman's Own interview in which she made that statement, and for which I provided a link in my posting of the 5th of August, I again provide the link here; "There is no such thing as Society" Interview Please read it. You may also wish to read my comments from the 5th of August. One of your phrases "it is one of the functions of "society", through the political and fiscal system" sums up exactly why we are now seeing a breakdown in that Society. It is that self same political and fiscal system that has done so much to erode the sense of personal or collective responsibility that acts as a glue to hold our society together. As Lady Thatcher actually said in that interview, Society is made up of individual men, women and children. How well it works depends on how willing people are to take PERSONAL responsibility for themselves, their families and how willing they are to assist those less fortunate than themselves. |
|
09 Aug 05 - 07:33 AM (#1538329) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST,Cho I can't remember if it was Hazlitt who said: "The Tory party takes nothing from the rich and gives it to the poor" |
|
09 Aug 05 - 09:10 AM (#1538393) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Dave Hanson And quit that ' Lady Thatcher ' shit, she is an old harridan with a paranoid hatred of working class people. And sapper82 has at last admitted his true colours, if he stops here long enough he we find out how small a minority he is in. eric THE RED |
|
09 Aug 05 - 09:15 AM (#1538396) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Dave Hanson And sapper82 why do you think there are NO conservative folk songs ?except the ones about the ' unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable ' Good music comes out of struggles and hard times caused by the rich and greedy opressing the workers, Thatchers tory party was no different, it still isn't. eric |
|
09 Aug 05 - 11:25 AM (#1538501) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Shakey Thatcher may well have a paranoid hatred of working class people, who knows. I'm just glad she's gone. However working class people in the 70s and 80s were no better served by corrupt and incompetant unions and a spineless out of control labour party. As I said above, it was the UDM that defeated the miners not Thatcher. I live near the Notts coalfields, I collected money for the miners even though I always believed that Scargill was a lunatic. Kinnock, Smith & Blair brought realism to the labour party and have crushed the idiotic left wing fanatics that were once so vocal. I see from this board that there are a few left but they're no more than a bad joke these days. Ramble on comrades, meanwhile real people will get the job done. Shakey Still proud to carry the card. |
|
09 Aug 05 - 11:37 AM (#1538513) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Little Hawk Political parties are the enemies of humanity. They mostly start out with high ideals, but rapidly turn into self-serving, self-perpetuating power blocs with no scruples whatsoever. (like labour unions) It is a bad idea to divide a public into opposing teams to fight against each other! A very bad idea. And that is what political parties do. They work with the principle "divide and conquer". They practice divisiveness, character assassination, false propaganda, and manipulation. They appeal to people's worst instincts in their search for power. They are a curse. We don't need them. We need candidates, and elections, but we DON'T need political parties. We could appoint qualified people at random to political positions and probably get better results in good government, and at far less cost and trouble! Someday people will look back on our present political parties as they now look back on the once "divine right of kings". They will see it as all having been a huge, giant delusion that stood in the way of peace, equality, prosperity and brotherhood. Thatcher was part of that huge, giant delusion...but I'll say this: she was effective. (mostly in the wrong direction) |
|
09 Aug 05 - 01:09 PM (#1538594) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST,Chang de Vere Ridley-Hayes The Unions killing British Industry? Don't make me larf... People prepared to work for 2 dollars a week in countries devoted to the Thatcher ethic, is wots killing British Industry, gentlemen. Now.... Who's prepared to take a pay cut, for the common good, eh? |
|
09 Aug 05 - 01:12 PM (#1538597) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST,Ridley de Vere Hayes-Chang Are you saying: Wot Comes Around, Goes Around, sir? |
|
09 Aug 05 - 01:13 PM (#1538598) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST,Chang de Vere Ridley-Hates For some, my boy. For some. |
|
09 Aug 05 - 01:19 PM (#1538605) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST,Ridley de Vere Hayes-Chang ... but not for us, of course.... Oh that's good! |
|
09 Aug 05 - 01:57 PM (#1538628) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Little Hawk Roight then! |
|
09 Aug 05 - 09:42 PM (#1539008) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Dave Hanson Tory policy summed up......... the working classes should work harder for less pay to make more money for someone else in the national interest. eric |
|
10 Aug 05 - 05:39 AM (#1539196) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: akenaton Eric...As Hawk says the old labels are becoming redundant. We should be thinking beyond party politics. We now have a situation where a supposed "labour" government are implimenting policies that a "conservative" administration would never have attempted. Rhetoric, and distotion by Blair, carried the centre and many of the left, supported by the whole of the forces of traditional conservatism, into the Iraq shambles. Had the Conservatives been in power, I firmly believe this country would not have troops in Iraq today, and I say that as someone who has never voted conservative. The wholesale privatisation of public services and the introducionof markets forces as a philosophy, if attempted under a conservative govt today, would never get on the statute book. We are now almost in the same situation as the Americans, with an increasingly "dumbed down" electorate fighting over two parties which are basically the same. As the 16th century rebel priest Thomasso Campanella said. " The people" is a beast of muddy brain, who wages war for its chains rather than be free".....Ake |
|
10 Aug 05 - 06:52 AM (#1539237) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Shakey Eric writes Tory policy summed up......... the working classes should work harder for less pay to make more money for someone else in the national interest. Well eric you know as well as I that the tory party have never, willingly, done anything for the working people. It's no big secret. My point is that the working people looked to the unions and the Labour party to represent and protect them, and you know what, they were betrayed. The lunatic left wing have never been interested in working people and they're still not. Ake thinks we've all dumbed down, on the contrary we've wisened up; by getting rid of the cranks Labour has gained the trust of the majority of people and institutions and been able to produce real results. We stand accused of pragmatism by ake, LOL . 1. Lowest inflation since the 60s 2. Lowest mortgage rates for 40 years 3. Introduced the National Minimum Wage 4. Record police numbers in England and Wales 5. Cut overall crime by 30 per cent 6. Record levels of literacy and numeracy in schools 7. Best-ever primary school results 8. Funding for every pupil in England to double (since 1997) by 2007-08 9. Lowest unemployment for 29 years 10. Written off up to 100 per cent of debt owed by poorest counties 11. 78,700 more nurses 12. 27,400 more doctors 13. Brought back matrons to hospital wards 14. Devolved power to the Scottish Parliament 15. Devolved power to Welsh Assembly 16. Banned anti-personnel mines 17. NHS Direct offering free convenient patient advice at any time 18. New Deal - helped over a million people into work 19. Local government funding has increased by a third in real terms 20. Equalised the age of consent for gay men 21. Free entry to all national museums and galleries 22. Overseas aid budget more than doubled 23. Restored city-wide government to London 24. Child benefit up 25 per cent since 1997 25. Created Sure Start to help children from low income households 26. Introduced the Disability Rights Commission 27. £200 winter fuel payment to pensioners & extra £100 for over-80s 28. The biggest rolling stock replacement programme ever seen on our railways 29. Negotiated the historic Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland 30. Over 28,000 more teachers in England schools 31. Implemented the Freedom of Information Act 32. All workers now have a right to 4 weeks� paid holiday 33. Record rises in the state pension 34. 700,000 children lifted out of relative poverty 35. Introduced child tax credit giving more money to parents 36. Banned handguns 37. Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75 per cent 38. Free nursery places for three and four-year-olds in England, Scotland and Wales 39. Free fruit for all four to six-year-olds at school 40. Free school milk for five, six and seven-year-olds in Wales 41. Record police numbers in Scotland 42. Implemented the Human Rights Act 43. Cleanest rivers, beaches, drinking water and air since the industrial revolution 44. Free TV licences for over-75s 45. Banned fur farming and the testing of cosmetics on animals 46. Halved maximum waiting times for NHS operations 47. Free local bus travel for the over-60s and the disabled in Wales and Scotland 48. Record number of students in higher education 49. Extended the Race Relations Act so that all public bodies and functions now have a duty to promote race equality 50. Five, six and seven-year-olds in class sizes of 30 or less Oh, and somebody please give ake a hug. The poor man is obviously deperate. |
|
10 Aug 05 - 06:58 AM (#1539241) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Dave Hanson To ake and Shakey, I guess I'm a dinosaur at heart and I'm DEFINATELY a luddite. Never mind eh. eric |
|
10 Aug 05 - 07:52 AM (#1539281) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST,DB Thatcher and Blair and Bush are, of course, only the tools of an economic system which is profoundly flawed. It is a system that believes that resources are infinite and can be exploited infinitely - and resolutely ignores any evidence to the contrary. Well, I've got a sneaking suspicion that they (and us!) are in for a rude awakening. I keep reading snatches in the press and on the Web which suggests that oil production has peaked and will soon run out (petrol at 90p a litre - any connection, I wonder?). Because the whole 'house-of-cards' is based on an infinite supply of oil it is likely to soon come crashing down around our ears. Thatcher could have been 'wrong' because she really did believe in the 'infinite resources' myth. On the other hand Bush and Blair could be'right'because they've taken the blinkers off and seen this coming - grabbing what's left of, and keeping control of, the world's remaining oil stocks is the only credible reason for invading Iraq. |
|
10 Aug 05 - 08:48 AM (#1539344) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: akenaton Shakibus.... As I cant be arsed going through your whole pedantic list, I'll aswer them all in one word SPIN!! Your examples are meaningless except when studied in detail. A typical case of facts being fixed to sit the agenda. As an example, you cite winter payments to pensioners as something to be proud of, whereas, a true government of the people would make sure that its senior citizens received a pension that would ensure some degree of comfort in old age, rather than the pittance they receive at present. Of course , with a bit of luck ,most will be too demented or to proud to fill in the forms for their "extras". Go and hug you hero Blair, he loves tories masquerading as socialists.....Ake |
|
10 Aug 05 - 09:29 AM (#1539388) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Shakey Your examples are meaningless except when studied in detail. I didn't realise I was dealing with such a razor sharp mind. I was tempted to show just how much of a simpleton you really are but you do that much better than I ever could. You're not by any chance a member of the SWP are you? Or maybe the Respect party. In every post, in every thread, you seek to have a go at Blair, why don't you just start a thread with the subject "Blair is a tosser" and be done with it. |
|
10 Aug 05 - 10:58 AM (#1539448) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: akenaton Everybody knows THAT old song |
|
10 Aug 05 - 12:08 PM (#1539479) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: robomatic akenaton, on your post of 08 Aug 05 that was a good answer and you've made me think, but I'll try to forgive you! |
|
10 Aug 05 - 12:46 PM (#1539504) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: R. Padgett 1 Work is needed for our youngsters to do, not all are academically minded and need alternative work. When I left school in mid 1960s I could have my pick of jobs 2 Education in schools is not equiping the 16 year olds for work; very many have a poor grasp of English and Numeracy basic times tables addition and division are not grasped and learnt properly if at all up to 16 ~ we had to!! 3 IT is fortunately popular, but many are not yet being given the opportunity at secondary school (up to 16) due to lack of funding 4 Investment for pensions is a very sore point ~ I do not believe that Stock Exchange investment underpinning any investment is appropriate, look at Endowment policy scandal, the world slump in 2000 has not yet recovered (no good to me my pension has eclipsed) 5 The investment in housing due to the lack of certainty in Stock Exchange shares has produced inflated housing prices leading to mortgages that will never be paid off and repossessions ~ youngsters will not be able to afford to buy 6 New thinking whereby reasonable gauranteed rates accrue to investments for everyone are needed ~ Governments which continue to renage on past promises will always exist, hopefully now they have learnt from their past experiences, but so too have we investors. It will take many years for confidence to return to the UK for the more risky investment opportunities. Spend your money now because you cannot trust government nor any financial advisor may be 'best advice' make your own mind up on that one!! I would not advise anyone to save for a life time knowing that the value will be worthless And no I do not know the answer, but do I trust anyone with my money I DO NOT |
|
10 Aug 05 - 01:12 PM (#1539524) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Shakey Everybody knows THAT old song Well, there goes that razor sharp mind again, destroying my argument with just a few well chosen words. |
|
10 Aug 05 - 03:05 PM (#1539633) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: akenaton Thanks for the comment Robo...and try to keep up with the thinking, I've seen cases as severe as Shakey completely rehabilitated by that course of treatment. Seriously, you made some excellent points in your original post and although we often disagree, I admire your open minded stance on most subjects. Shakey...You're correct about my opinion of Blair, the decision to commit troops to Iraq and the methods used to "sell" the war to the British public and parliament was unforgivable. He is not only a glory hunting egomaniac, but also a short sighted fool. On both counts he is unfit to hold the office of prime minister. This thread was supposed to illustrate how we have lost our sense of involvement with others, and lost any sense of collective responsibility for the actions of our government. In my opinion this can be laid at the door of those who inflicted the "New Labour Project" upon us. |
|
11 Aug 05 - 02:30 PM (#1540225) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: R. Padgett WE still have Management V Union problems look at the B.A contracted out stance and walk out "un official strike" companies still trying to do things on the cheap instaed of keeping things in house and properly monitored, simply perpetuating low wages to a section of society with little clout except via a trade union So what does legislation say ~ sack the workers (700) who are at the end of their tether, leading to all out shut down, via sympathy strikes What does this tell you B.A. ~~ no no prizes for guessing, Contracting out leads to company bosses wanting to make the extra buck at the expense of those doing the menial work for nothing (a pittance) End result no control and a business which stops and loses more than value of the contract Tourists stranded bad publicity and bad feeling all round It's your own fault BA for following ridiculous mangament ideas to reduce costs Thatcher's ideas? God help us too clever by half |
|
30 Dec 06 - 03:39 AM (#1921951) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST A group of Irish-American politicians has blocked the US Congress from awarding a congressional medal to former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher. Illinois Republican congressman Mark Kirk admitted earlier this month that plans to award Mrs Thatcher the Congressional Medal of Honour had to be abandoned after Massachusetts Democratic congressman Barney Frank said he would do everything he could to stop it because of the Irish community's "very legitimate and strong" reaction to Mrs Thatcher. He was joined by a group of congressmen from Irish districts, including Joe Crowley of New York, who said that it would be "just plain wrong" to give Congress's highest award to Mrs Thatcher on the 25th anniversary year of the IRA hunger strikes. "Many people in the British government who came after her did great work to end the conflict, but she certainly didn't," he said. Mr Frank said there was "absolutely no way" that Republicans could obtain the required two-thirds vote required to allow Congress to give Mrs Thatcher the medal of honour, also known as the congressional gold medal. Mr Frank is the most senior Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, which makes a final approval on congressional medal of honour candidates after they are nominated by two-thirds of the members of Congress. "I told the Republican members that I would use the full time allotted to debate the medal and that I would call a full roll-call before the vote would be allowed to go through. I don't think anyone had the stomach for it, so they've dropped it," he said. Mr Frank said that he also opposed Mrs Thatcher's stand on gay issues when she was in power. "I don't think we should be giving out medals to people just because they were friends of Ronald Reagan. |
|
30 Dec 06 - 09:28 AM (#1922154) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Richard Bridge This must be about the only thing she ever did that did not deserve wholehearted condemnation. Hers was on this occasion (and probably only this occasion) a "very legitimate and strong" reaction to a series of illegitmate threats to lawful authority. Oh, that and a certain "Gotcha". However, given the other sins of hers, the idea that anyone other than the ghost of Mussolini would want to give her a medal beggars belief. I would happily hang her in a gibbet until only bleaching bones remained. |
|
30 Dec 06 - 04:09 PM (#1922488) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Tom Hamilton frae Saltcoats Scotland naw she wasnae richt, mind you neither is blair or b.lair as he should be called. I don't know how anyone could call themselevses solicalists and yet vote for another right wing party |
|
30 Dec 06 - 06:30 PM (#1922639) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Cluin Was Thatcher right? She certainly wasn't left. |
|
30 Dec 06 - 07:35 PM (#1922687) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Teribus With out any reservation, the best Prime Minister that the United Kingdom has ever had. You elect people to provide LEADERSHIP. OK subsequent to her departure, name one British politician who has demonstrated leadership as opposed to populist claptrap. |
|
30 Dec 06 - 08:09 PM (#1922714) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST,Bruce Michael Baillie ...NO Margaret Thatcher was never right she was a fucking bitch! Yes she showed strong leadership, but leadership without an ounce of compassion. I lived through those years and always wondered why it was she promoted the home ownership thing, getting everyone to own their own houses rather than rent? over the years I've seen why the old bitch was so keen on that idea, so when you're old and decrepit your house can be sold to pay someone to look after you, ...well that's if you call being looked after, sitting in your own piss for 18 hours a day while some poor overworked woman on below the minimum wage tries to cope with 40 or so inmates of what are laughingly reffered to as 'Care Homes'. Teribus, if Margaret Thatcher was our best Prime Minister then God help us when the worst one finally arrives!!! |
|
30 Dec 06 - 09:42 PM (#1922761) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: akenaton Even Teribus seems to have missed the point of this thread. Its not about whether on not Thatcher was a good leader, but whether her remarks about "society" were valid. I detested Thatchers ideology almost as much as I detest Blair personally, but there is a ring of truth about her opinion of the British electorate. Are we really only motivated by self interest. With the death of Saddam today, why are we all saying on another thread that the monster deserves to die, yet turn our heads away from the death and mutilation of innocent women and children, caused in part by our support for "our monsters". Double standards and hypocrisy abound......Ake |
|
30 Dec 06 - 09:49 PM (#1922768) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker sod saddam.. i want to watch Thather be slowly garotted..!!!?? [big party in ciderland planned for her wake..] .. though if my mum and dad could have afforded to buy their council house back in the 80's and leave it to me in their will.. maybe my attitude might be a slight bit different..!!!??? ..and how dare 'Thatchers vintage cider' be so exquiitely lovely with that surname making each sip so bitter sweet..!!!!! |
|
31 Dec 06 - 04:43 AM (#1922939) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Dave Hanson Good name though innit ' Thatchers Falling Down ' eric |
|
31 Dec 06 - 05:09 AM (#1922950) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: sapper82 The more I read some of the comments above, particularly the violent wishes of punkfolkrocker, the more I wonder of their sanity and the more I am glad I do not share such hate filled opinions. |
|
31 Dec 06 - 07:16 AM (#1923014) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Big Al Whittle What is this medal? is it reserved for nice people? if so, can I have one? I have always paid my speeding fines, and change my guitar strings quite often. I think its high time I got some form of recognition for these services to humanity. |
|
31 Dec 06 - 07:31 AM (#1923022) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: autolycus In no way do I share the violent attitudes of other posters, and I'm glad that the Americans are refusing her that medal - well done people. Interesting that it has not been prominent news here on UK radio. Happy and fruitful New Year Ivor |
|
31 Dec 06 - 12:17 PM (#1923231) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST She was right about a lot of things, we just did not like the things she was right about. She did some unpleasant things that needed doing, that is never popular, is it ? |
|
31 Dec 06 - 06:34 PM (#1923581) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Tootler NO!! She was a ragbag of prejudices and most of what she did was about settling old scores. That she did some things that needed doing was a by product of that but she did it in such a way as to alienate large numbers of people. She was perfectly prepared to tread on people and kick them when they were down to get her way. That is not the mark of a good leader. Her legacy is a divided society with a great many people feeling excluded and it will take at least a generation to heal the damage. |
|
31 Dec 06 - 08:19 PM (#1923652) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: akenaton Tootler...the damage will never be healed...It's built into the system that our society will diverge. The "have nots" are a product of "progress". THe world of science fiction is not far off, where a continual civil war is joined by the ruling elite and the underclass...Ake |
|
01 Jan 07 - 05:05 AM (#1923811) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST,Shimrod I vividly remember the 'Letters' column of my local newspaper from around the time that Thatcher was elected (1979). This was full of letters complaining about 'benefits scroungers', 'immigrants', 'trade unionists' etc. The main thrust of these letters appeared to be that people who were perceived to be of a lower social status than the letter writers were 'getting away with things'/'getting more than their fair share'. There were never any letters about what people of a perceived higher social status may have been 'getting away with'. I believe that Thatcher appealed to these letter writers and their 'silent majority' neighbours, and they are the people who elected her. She came to power on a platform of envy, petty spite, greed and snobbery (always a winning combination!). Of course, Thatcher's real project was all to do with Free Market Economics and giving away the 'family silver' to Big Business. I'll give her her due though: most modern politicians make promises to the electorate in order to get elected and then promptly sell out to Big Business when in office. Thatcher sold out to Big Business and kept her promises to stop the poor and disadvantaged from 'getting away' with stuff. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 09:03 AM (#1923918) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: sapper82 Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: akenaton - PM Date: 30 Dec 06 - 09:42 PM Even Teribus seems to have missed the point of this thread. Its not about whether on not Thatcher was a good leader, but whether her remarks about "society" were valid. As I have said in previous posts, as well as providing links, when one actually takes the time to read the entire interview in "Woman's Own" it is immediately obvious that what she was really saying is totally at odds with the "accepted" interpretaion of the left. This leads to a further point. When one looks at the mendacity of the Left in the way it has taken quotations out of context or reinterpreted "facts" to suit their adgenda, one tends to think what else have they twisted and lied about. Perhaps this link here might enlighten some of those with open minds. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 09:25 AM (#1923925) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST Funny how those who support her now are those who were in the forces or the police - the favoured ones. She was a misguided, bigotted harridan who ruined thousands of lives. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 09:28 AM (#1923927) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST That guardianlies site is a hoot! There are some truly deranged people out there, eh? Are to to believe that the CPS, the whole legal system and a jury were party to all of this? Makes Fayed's paranoia seem sane! |
|
01 Jan 07 - 09:54 AM (#1923938) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Geordie-Peorgie "Funny how those who support her now are those who were in the forces or the police - the favoured ones" Aye, because the previous governments had ignored those areas. Oh! When soldiers sailors & airmen went off to fight in the Falklands (A British Island) they DID have adequate equipment and enough of it - Albeit the fact that the media in UK showed the Argies where our 'shortfalls' were. Our current leader has packed off a bunch of ill-prepared and ill-equipped young men & women to fight someone else's fights (plural) in the middle east - I bet HE gets a congressional medal of honour. But, back to the title of the thread - Yes! She was right - our society was, is and will continue to be 'dog eat dog' and 'every man for himself' because that's the way we are She didn't cause it! |
|
01 Jan 07 - 10:28 AM (#1923961) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Dave Hanson Funny how you can speak good English when your ranting on. eric |
|
01 Jan 07 - 10:55 AM (#1923981) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST Hooly crap, man. Ye mean tez say that Geordie lad disn't allus write like that? Aye, and there was me thinking he was a poor illiterate victim of the Thatcher yers! Inside that ludicrous affectation is an old-fashioned twat. Fancy! |
|
01 Jan 07 - 11:44 AM (#1924017) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Big Al Whittle As I remember, the interior of the Sir Galahad was coated in highly flammable material to save a few quid. And the whole bloody escapade was caused by her nibs deciding to knock off the naval patrols which were protecting the islands. that's why the Argies decided to chance their arm. Callaghan had averted a similar war by just lining up the warships a few years earlier. the bloody woman was a bag of shite. she had a rip roaring time giving anti Irish speeches to a load of daft old sods in hats at the tory party conference - provoking the worse violence between the two countries for nearly two hundred years. The only thing that she really did right was to make her rotten party unleadable and unelectable. She was kept in power by the Ulster Unionists. The frightening thing is that if Cameron gets himself elected, he will similarly have his nuts in Paisley's hands and we can look forward to another round of mayhem. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 06:55 PM (#1924340) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Geordie-Peorgie Are you seriously saying that Ian Paisley is STILL a force to be reckoned with?? He's almost dead!! Eric, There's nothing funny about my accent - Strangely enough I thought that a serious response was woth a serious response - Obviously not!! So gan and stuff yersel' ye commie twat!! |
|
01 Jan 07 - 07:07 PM (#1924349) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST Sounds like you could do with some of those electrocution lessons Geordie. |
|
01 Jan 07 - 07:34 PM (#1924360) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Big Al Whittle If the Cameron gets in, Paisley's cohorts will be kicking ass again. Cameron will kissing the boots that kick his ass and call him a sell out. that much is surely predictable. |
|
02 Jan 07 - 02:16 AM (#1924565) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Dave Hanson Divant ye taalk to me like that ye geet big conservative geordie pillock. eric |
|
02 Jan 07 - 05:05 AM (#1924610) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST Must be one of a rare breed, a Geordie tory! Probably a plastic Geordie with an 'Innovations' catalogue miner's lamp on the mantlepiece alongside his collection of Daily Mail free gifts. The DUP is still a force to be reckoned with, and still has links with the murderers of the UVF and the UFF. The ones who haven't got rid of their guns. Look at the name of the Tory party - it's the 'Conservative and Unionist Party'. There's a clue there! |
|
02 Jan 07 - 10:56 AM (#1924800) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Teribus weelittledrummer - 01 Jan 07 - 11:44 AM "As I remember, the interior of the Sir Galahad was coated in highly flammable material to save a few quid. And the whole bloody escapade was caused by her nibs deciding to knock off the naval patrols which were protecting the islands. that's why the Argies decided to chance their arm." Eh, No WLD, you remember incorrectly: "Anchored 1200 feet apart in Port Pleasant, the landing ships were near Fitzroy, the designated landing point. The landing craft should have been able to unload the ships to that point relatively quickly, but confusion over the ordered disembarcation point (the first half of the Guards going direct to Bluff Cove) resulted in the senior Welsh Guards infantry officer aboard insisting his troops be ferried the far longer distance direct to Port Fitzroy/Bluff Cove. The intention was for the infantrymen to march via the recently repaired Bluff Cove bridge (destroyed by retreating Argentinian combat engineers) to their destination, a journey of around seven miles. The longer journey time of the landing craft taking the troops direct to Bluff Cove and the squabbling over how the landing was to be performed caused enormous delay in unloading. This had disastrous consequences. Without escorts, having not yet established their air defence and still almost fully laden, the two LSLs in Port Pleasant were sitting targets for two waves of Argentinian-FAA A-4 Skyhawks." The "Household Brigade" and Amphibious Operations should never be mixed. Throughout this whole sorry business the Royal Marine liaison officer pleaded with these prats to get their men shifted ashore ASAP, he was politely ignored, after all who the hell was he, a marine, to instruct officers of the Household Brigade on what to do in the field of amphibious operations. Their ignorance, arrogence and incompetence were astounding. But one thing is certain WLD it had nothing whatsoever to do with any orders or instructions given by Margaret Thatcher, it had nothing whatsoever to do with the paint, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with Admiral Sandy Woodwards fleet dispositions. The orders given for the operation were simple and straightforward, get in there, get ashore as rapidly as possible, and let the ships get clear as quickly as possible. |
|
02 Jan 07 - 10:59 AM (#1924804) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Big Al Whittle I bet there are quite a few geordie tories. i bet half of them sing unaccompanied folksongs about pit explosions for light relief. its so much easier to blether on the what a rough time they had in those catherine cookson novels, than to focus on the groups in society who are having a shit time of it in the here and now. |
|
02 Jan 07 - 11:16 AM (#1924826) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Big Al Whittle Once again Mr Dick sets us right....! from David Copperfield, but it does have a certain resonance on these occasions. Happy new Year Teribus! |
|
02 Jan 07 - 12:33 PM (#1924913) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Geordie-Peorgie Yup! There's lots of tory geordies - Mair than ye'd reckon! "I bet there are quite a few geordie tories. i bet half of them sing unaccompanied folksongs about pit explosions for light relief. its so much easier to blether on the what a rough time they had in those catherine cookson novels" The Wilson Family by any chance?? And Thanks for coming in with a real bit of historical accuracy there Teribus And..... you guessed wrong about the Davey Lamp, WLD - It's an original which belonged to my paternal Grandfather - My Granny was a labour councillor in Wallsend for many years but saw the light eventually (after WWll) and swapped horses. Eric, Do you still have the Morning Star delivered or do you collect it yourself?? |
|
02 Jan 07 - 12:33 PM (#1924914) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Big Al Whittle looking back over your contribution Teribus. It does seem a bit of a bugger, attacking the NCO's and junior officers (presumably) who were having to execute orders which weren't crystal clear. where were all the big nobs when the shit started to fly - writing down statistics for mr dick to fly his kite round...... |
|
02 Jan 07 - 01:58 PM (#1924932) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST,Ms Penelope Rutledge Is Big Ben on the Isle of Wight? No, she was not bloody right! * PR |
|
02 Jan 07 - 02:02 PM (#1924936) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST SHE STOLE MY MILK. |
|
02 Jan 07 - 02:39 PM (#1924954) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Paul from Hull Teribus is essentally right (as he's shown) about the Sir Galahad tragedy coming about because the Welsh Guards not disembarking in timely fashion. Wld, you sort of misremembered the situation a bit, in that it was Hms Sheffield (& possibly her sister ship Coventry too, also lost) which had insulation around electrical wiring (stuff that looked like black-coloured pipe lagging) that burned & gave of toxic fumes, in 'companionways' (passageways) & workspaces. Not only had the Government planned to withdraw Hms Endurance from Antarctic/South Atlantic waters, they had also had preliinary negotiations to sell one of the 2 larger Amphibious Landing Ships (larger than Galahad class I mean) either Fearless or Intrepid (I cant remember which). What the hell we thought they wanted a Landing Ship for though is one of the things that boggles my mind the most. It was also the case that the discussions with the Foreign Office had possibly led the Argentinians to think that we wouldnt be unhappy to hav the issue of the Falklands resolved in whatever way. As is often the case in war, this armed conflict was as a result of somebody calling the other guys bluff. |
|
02 Jan 07 - 06:53 PM (#1925177) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Big Al Whittle It wasn't me who cast aspersions on that little lamp of thine. i wouldn't have too much confidence in them though, I think my Grandad used his to light his fags with - send down a pit pony, or whatever... if it turns into a canary, theres something fishy going on.....(ancient piece of mining folk lore) |
|
03 Jan 07 - 06:27 AM (#1925481) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Teribus From my post that weelittledrummer looked back over to find that I had critisized the NCO's and men of the Welsh Guards: "the landing ships were near Fitzroy, the designated landing point. The landing craft should have been able to unload the ships to that point relatively quickly, but confusion over the ordered disembarcation point (the first half of the Guards going direct to Bluff Cove) resulted in the senior Welsh Guards infantry officer aboard insisting his troops be ferried the far longer distance direct to Port Fitzroy/Bluff Cove." "The longer journey time of the landing craft taking the troops direct to Bluff Cove and the squabbling over how the landing was to be performed caused enormous delay in unloading. This had disastrous consequences." Now then WLD where, in all of that, does it refer to any Welsh Guard's Private, NCO or Junior Officer? Doesn't does it WLD? So where does your charge of me critising them come from? Or are you just putting words into my mouth then hauling me to task over them? Also, with your extensive military experience, how if Fitzroy is designated (Ordered) landing point for ALL troops, and the senior Welsh Guards Officer onboard altered that against the best specialist advice of the Royal Marine Liaison Officer (Rank - Major). Does the fault for this monstrous cock-up devolve to those higher up the chain of command and to those political leaders sitting many thousands of miles away? Local decision, the senior Guards Officer did not want half of his troops to "yomp" seven miles with full kit, he wanted his "Household Brigade" delivered to the front door by taxi. In short WLD - His decision - caused unnecessary delays - resulted in the disaster that followed. I hope that that is simple enough for you, and the massive chips you bear on each shoulder, to understand. Difficult though that may be for a cynical, hard-left, old-labour dinosaur, such as yourself. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 06:50 AM (#1925494) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST That's terribly terrible, Teribus |
|
03 Jan 07 - 06:53 AM (#1925495) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST Once again, Teribus, you are devoting huge energy to outlining and defending a very specific point, while ignoring the great ocean of truth before you. The Tories, like Labour before them, were running down the Navy and Fearless was to be pensioned off. Standards of construction and specs in recently-built vessles had been pared to ludicrously low levels while the construction companies creamed off the cash. The kit for those on land wasn't great either - some of 2 Para experienced trench foot because of the shite boots. Before the task force sailed Silverman's was under seige because the issue kit was so useless (As it has been before every major engagement since - the MoD should simply make them Quartermasters General and be done with it!). Thatcher's arse was saved by the fact that the men she sent were extraordinary. Their professionalism had absolutely nothing to do with her, and her triumphalism afterwards was nauseating to many who went. Agreed, the senior ruperts in the Household Division were wankers. But they always have been - it's what comes of putting inbred halfwits in charge. Brave as lions in a tight spot, but that tight spot is usually a result of their own stupidity. And when they retire from the Army they become stalwarts of the local Tory party, with the blue-collar deferential tories fawning around them, licking arse and tugging forelocks, because they have 'breeding'. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 07:04 AM (#1925499) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Keith A of Hertford I remember those boots well. The tongue was not sewn in. Just walking through wet grass got your socks wet. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 07:35 AM (#1925512) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Big Al Whittle Perhaps the guy on the ground made a mistake. At least he was there on the ground. a position you should respect. they always DO put you in this position. i don't need vast military experience. just a bit of insight into human nature. i spent frigging years in inner city schools trying to make them work with thirty year old text books, shitty uncleaned buildings, senior staff imported fom 'nice'schools sat in their offices making up rules that were complete bollocks, money shovelled out of every window on politically motivated 'initiaves'..... Its the way of the world my friend, the guy who gets the job of making things work is always 'arse end charlie'. its the privilege of those who seek power without responsibility, and those who fawn upon them, to sneer. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 07:42 AM (#1925515) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Dave Hanson Hi Geordie, the feckin paper lad chucks it at my door in a poor attempt at breaking my window cos I didn't tip him at christmas. eric |
|
03 Jan 07 - 09:09 AM (#1925570) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Teribus Yes GUEST of 03 Jan 07 - 06:53 AM, I was and I am addressing a very specific point, that very specific point having been raised by weelittledrummer in his post of 01 Jan 07 - 11:44 AM "As I remember, the interior of the Sir Galahad was coated in highly flammable material to save a few quid. And the whole bloody escapade was caused by her nibs deciding to knock off the naval patrols which were protecting the islands. that's why the Argies decided to chance their arm." What is quoted above is incorrect. Whereas much of what you say in your post I agree with "The Tories, like Labour before them, were running down the Navy and Fearless was to be pensioned off." Very true, but what is the relevance of this in relation to Margaret Thatcher, or to the Falklands. The Falklands War was brought about by Argentinian aggression. If ever the "green light" was given to the Argentinians in relation to the Falklands it was when Dennis Healey as Minister of Defence oversaw the axing of the Carriers and his attempt to get rid of the Fleet Air Arm. If at any time during the period 1966 to 1982 anybody had told me that the UK would independently mount an amphibious assault operation supported by minimal air cover to recover possessions over 12,000 miles away, I would have laughed. The biggest mistake the Argentinian Junta made was in underestimating the lady's will and determination. "Standards of construction and specs in recently-built vessels had been pared to ludicrously low levels while the construction companies creamed off the cash." Take this up with the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors at Bath - Nothing political with regard to technical input into the Construction Standards and Specs of Royal Navy warships. "The kit for those on land wasn't great either - some of 2 Para experienced trench foot because of the shite boots. Before the task force sailed Silverman's was under seige because the issue kit was so useless (As it has been before every major engagement since - the MoD should simply make them Quartermasters General and be done with it!)." As you infer yourself - How far back do you want to go? It was the same for soldiers of Wellington's Army as it is for the present day British soldier, and not just boots, why do you think their back packs are called Bergans - Those on winter training in Norway ditched the UK issued kit and bought Norwegian rucksacks made by Berghans of Norway. Once again this has always been a common failing in the British armed services and is not down to any specific government or politician. As such it should be up to the senior members of the armed services and civil servants in charge of procurement to get it set right. "Thatcher's arse was saved by the fact that the men she sent were extraordinary. Their professionalism had absolutely nothing to do with her, and her triumphalism afterwards was nauseating to many who went." With that I whole-heartedly agree, but you have to admit, she did demonstrate the will to recover what had been taken and act to defend the inhabitants of the islands and restore to them what had been taken and I will give her full credit for that. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 11:10 AM (#1925660) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST,06:53 So, by and large, you agree with me Teribus? Good show! |
|
03 Jan 07 - 11:11 AM (#1925662) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Big Al Whittle yeh but those islands would never have been even put at hazard had it not been for her, trying to save a few quid in the first place - to fund tax relief for the stinking rich. 'the lady's will and determination' - I bet she could give a good hiding any day of the week in a rubber mask Teribus...... |
|
03 Jan 07 - 11:22 AM (#1925668) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: GUEST,Still bitter As someone who lost a good friend on Wireless Ridge when the craphats in the RA couldn't get their fucking guns to range properly because their equipment was obsolete shite, I would happily spit on her bloody grave. There was fuck all of him left, so the bag in the coffin that was shipped all the way home to be buried with full military honours was more full of peat than person. I've gone on to have kids and a life - he didn't get that chance. Dulce et Decorum Est? He didn't give his life for his country; it was taken away from him by incompetence and penny pinching. The sort of incompetence and penny-pinching that Thatcher stood for. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 12:59 PM (#1925733) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Geordie-Peorgie My apologerries WLD - Insufficient attention to detail! Eric, If the little bugger cannit be bothered te waalk up yer drive/path te put the thing through yer letter box he dizzent desorve a tip - Unless it's heid forst into the dustbin. AND..... we'll still be blaming her for the state of this country at the turn of the next century - It's cos she committed the cardinal sin when she won and we aall knaah that this country LOVES a loser! |
|
03 Jan 07 - 01:58 PM (#1925772) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Big Al Whittle cultural diversity is all very well, but we don't all love losers - some of us like Tony Blair and Manchester United. can't all be Sunderland fans.... |
|
03 Jan 07 - 04:01 PM (#1925872) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Tootler "... triumphalism afterwards was nauseating to many who went." The same nauseating triumphalism she displayed at the end of the miners strike. "We won!", she said. We won, my arse. Nobody won in that case. The whole episode was a disaster for everyone. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 05:50 PM (#1925930) Subject: RE: BS: Was Thatcher right? From: Geordie-Peorgie Hadaway!! Sunderland's for Makkems |