Terse Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 The prosperity Thatcher brought to Britain was selective, antagonistic and temporary. She did indeed leave Britain 'very, very much better', but only for some. She also left it in recession, with unemployment, inflation and interest rates rising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jehovah Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Interesting how people feel comfortable writing about UKIP, BNP and Thatcher all in the same thread. Spot the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 12, 2009 Author Share Posted July 12, 2009 I don't really understand what there is to be thankful for with Thatcher. She simply gave things the 'chop' and allowed profit-making to continue more unhindered. But this was at the cost of working class power. Though she was not at fault for the fact that the British economy had performed so poorly over the previous thirty year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Voice of Unreason - the tarradiddle is both in your use of emotive language when you simply need to state your disagreement and in your apparent amnesia on the subject of the true state of the country's economy in the late 70s. The integrity of the Forum is in more danger from you than me. I have not accused you of lying and your claim that I have is no more than an attempt to throw a red herring into the mix. "That woman is evil" - another bit of emotive nonsense. Perhaps you would like to propose your definition of Evil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Interesting how people feel comfortable writing about UKIP, BNP and Thatcher all in the same thread. Spot the difference? It would appear that there are many of you who cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 I don't really understand what there is to be thankful for with Thatcher. She simply gave things the 'chop' and allowed profit-making to continue more unhindered. But this was at the cost of working class power. Though she was not at fault for the fact that the British economy had performed so poorly over the previous thirty year. OK, LDV - just how else should things have been put to rights? The usual request for alternatives is usually met with either a deafening silence or a tirade of senseless abuse. I hope you can rise above that (especially as we are related!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 12, 2009 Author Share Posted July 12, 2009 I don't really understand what there is to be thankful for with Thatcher. She simply gave things the 'chop' and allowed profit-making to continue more unhindered. But this was at the cost of working class power. Though she was not at fault for the fact that the British economy had performed so poorly over the previous thirty year. OK, LDV - just how else should things have been put to rights? The usual request for alternatives is usually met with either a deafening silence or a tirade of senseless abuse. I hope you can rise above that (especially as we are related!). My politics are anarchist so I would have advocated abolishing the government and all its apparatus - that would be putting things to rights. I am no way discussing the feasibility given the support for anarchism around that time. From a conventional perspective that favours a continuation of capitalist practices, her actions were sensible if callous. I think it would be a fool who can criticise the Conservative government for the anti-working class action that it took throughout the 1980s in removing working class power and in a sense in closing the mines whilst also believing that capitalism, i.e. profit-making, and property ownership, etc., is the system we want. It doesn't make sense. I am no capitalist but there isn't a satisfactory happy halfway-house between unfettered capitalism (profitmaking and growth) and socialism (in the form of unions and state protection from consequences of capitalism). But Thatcher shouldn't be celebrated because she stripped the power away from the people who work and left them in even less control of their work and wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 12, 2009 Author Share Posted July 12, 2009 Interesting how people feel comfortable writing about UKIP, BNP and Thatcher all in the same thread. Spot the difference? It would appear that there are many of you who cannot. Not much difference between UKIP and Thatcherite politics really. BNP are of a different quality of politics, they are almost certainly fascist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 "I am no capitalist but there isn't a satisfactory happy halfway-house between unfettered capitalism (profitmaking and growth) and socialism (in the form of unions and state protection from consequences of capitalism)." Yes there is, LDV - the sort of capitalism practised in Germany, for example, before the American-Model Neo Capitalism spread around the globe via US (and UK) financial domicance sufficiently to make it untenable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 12, 2009 Author Share Posted July 12, 2009 "I am no capitalist but there isn't a satisfactory happy halfway-house between unfettered capitalism (profitmaking and growth) and socialism (in the form of unions and state protection from consequences of capitalism)."Yes there is, LDV - the sort of capitalism practised in Germany, for example, before the American-Model Neo Capitalism spread around the globe via US (and UK) financial domicance sufficiently to make it untenable. It's your opinion. I agree that the Continent had an economic system in place throughout most of the end of the twentieth century that put workers in a better position than they were in the USA and UK. But no capitalist system is satisfactory to me for a lot of reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Voice of Unreason - the tarradiddle is both in your use of emotive language when you simply need to state your disagreement and in your apparent amnesia on the subject of the true state of the country's economy in the late 70s. The integrity of the Forum is in more danger from you than me. I have not accused you of lying and your claim that I have is no more than an attempt to throw a red herring into the mix. "That woman is evil" - another bit of emotive nonsense. Perhaps you would like to propose your definition of Evil? I make no apologies for being emotional when talking about that that woman. She set communities, even families, against each other, sent young soldiers to their death for no other reason other than her self-glorification. That alone I think is pretty evil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 12, 2009 Author Share Posted July 12, 2009 ...sent young soldiers to their death for no other reason other than her self-glorification. That alone I think is pretty evil Just interested, don't know much about the workings of her cabinet when she began the Falklands conflict. Why do you say it was for her own self-gratification? You think she was evil or what she did was evil? I don't think she purposefully nasty, rather completely unconcerned and genuinely thought she was doing what was good for country. She is still a complete bitch though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Just interested, don't know much about the workings of her cabinet when she began the Falklands conflict. Why do you say it was for her own self-gratification? You think she was evil or what she did was evil? Election coming up, We "own" the Falklands because we invaded it years ago. The Argentinians had been trying for years to discuss sovereignty of the Falklands yet we refused to enter into discussions, notwithstanding that they are several thousand miles away. Any Falklander Islander requiring urgent medical treatment went to Buenos Aeres , not Harley Street. It's not like the Argentinians would land on the Islands and systematiclly execute those resident there. (In such case obviously military action would be required) To my mind if the Falkland islanders wanted to remain ""British citizens" then we should have paid their passage over to Britain and help them settle here. It's all to easy to point to the Callaghan government, rubbish piling up on the street, dead not being buried etc. But what followed was far worse. Yes I think she was evil. A conviction politician certainly. But so is Nick Griffin, for example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 'Evil Goblin', of course she was re-elected despite being unpopular outside of England - if you add up the votes from Scotland, Wales and the north of Ireland they hardly matter. "emotional twaddle" concerning her views on gays and Section 28. What do you expect? You can discredit anyone's opinion by saying that it's just twaddle just like you are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 12, 2009 Author Share Posted July 12, 2009 Election coming up, We "own" the Falklands because we invaded it years ago. It was 'invaded' a very long time ago. What does it matter? The Argentinians had been trying for years to discuss sovereignty of the Falklands yet we refused to enter into discussions, notwithstanding that they are several thousand miles away. Why should it be discussed? It doesn't matter how far away they are from Britain. They are still quite a distance from Argentina. It's not like the Argentinians would land on the Islands and systematiclly execute those resident there. (In such case obviously military action would be required) To my mind if the Falkland islanders wanted to remain ""British citizens" then we should have paid their passage over to Britain and help them settle here. No, they wouldn't execute anyone, but allowing the Falklands to be held by the Argenitinian military Britain would be seen internationally as weak. Moreover, if the people living on the Islands want to have British rule then why should this be overruled by the Argentinian desire to simply own the Islands? And it isn't even realistic to ask people to leave their homes. No doubt it boosted her popularity, that is very understandable. But considering how close-run the whole conflict was, I don't think it was planned. I do not agree with conflict but I am pointing out the 'whys' as I understand them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.